# Men - would you date a female that has been double penetrated before?



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Omg! Hahahahahahahahhahaha. XD did you ask her how does it felt? Lol


----------



## JayShambles (Aug 9, 2016)

ninjahitsawall said:


> I'd be more concerned if this was a frequent occurrence, and if it was something she's actually into, because I don't think I'd be into that..so that could be a problem as far as dating. I'd be more likely to be okay with dating her the more she disliked the experience (and confirmed STD-free). lol.


Haha, thanks for the good answer bro.


----------



## JayShambles (Aug 9, 2016)

atamagasuita said:


> Omg! Hahahahahahahahhahaha. XD did you ask her how does it felt? Lol


I've personally never dated a girl that has.. My ex would fantasise about it.. I'd be like cringing bad. There ain't two of me to go around


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

JayShambles said:


> I've personally never dated a girl that has.. My ex would fantasise about it.. I'd be like cringing bad. There ain't two of me to go around


Weh?? But you're just asking it. Lol. XD


----------



## JayShambles (Aug 9, 2016)

atamagasuita said:


> Weh?? But you're just asking it. Lol. XD


Weird things flow through my mind. I have no other excuse for asking the question. :-/


----------



## TheJ (Aug 3, 2015)

Yes I would date a girl like that. Yes, i'd find it hot. Yes, depending on the type of relationship we have, i'd want to participate in the next time it happens.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

JayShambles said:


> Weird things flow through my mind. I have no other excuse for asking the question. :-/


Well i actually fantasize it too but, i don't wanna do it irl. Eew. Eew. Two dicks. Yuck.


----------



## TwoStepsAhead (Feb 21, 2017)

by what?


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

LOL!! That's such a specific act at which to draw the line. But the answer is, no it would not bother me if a woman I was dating was in to, had been or wanted to be double penetrated. If it was a deeply rooted fantasy for her, I'd try and make it happen for her, if it had already happened, well it's not like I can change the past, so I wouldn't care. I also wouldn't care if the woman I were dating were bisexual and involved in a threesome with another woman (though granted that doesn't preclude the act of double penetration).

But yeah. It wouldn't weird me out that someone I was dating had, had precious sexual partners, nor would it bother me if she'd had multiple sexual partners in one encounter. As long as you're safe, disease free and we're both on the same dating page, we trust one another and work well together as partners, I couldn't care less.


----------



## Flying Triangle (Feb 10, 2017)

I would date her for a night and maybe breakfast.


----------



## Alles_Paletti (May 15, 2013)

Only if I just delivered her a pizza and she hasn't got money to pay. And there has to be cheesy music playing in the background.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Intellectually I have no issue with it, emotionally I have an uncomfortable anxiety about any mountain pick climbed in a partner's past that I can't conquer myself, and this is by definition one I can't (at least on my own). I would put this as somewhere on a spectrum between knowing an ex partner was way hotter than me and a dead one true love I could never live up to. To be fair, if I had a cloning machine or a time machine so that two of me can be in the same place and time, that's probably one of the first things I'd try.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

WamphyriThrall said:


> What? Where is all this ass hurt coming from?.


Not from being double-penetrated, evidently.

LOL, I don’t have any experience of this myself, but the title of the thread was so hilarious, I could not help stopping by.

So basically, the question could be interpreted in two different ways:

1. There could be an issue of incompatible sexual preferences. --> The answer to how to deal with this will differ from one person to another.

2. It is assumed that there is something immoral about this. --> What is immoral about it? We can't answer the question unless we know what exactly the premise is.


----------



## Flying Triangle (Feb 10, 2017)

FlaviaGemina said:


> So basically, the question could be interpreted in two different ways:
> 
> 1. There could be an issue of incompatible sexual preferences. --> The answer to how to deal with this will differ from one person to another.
> 
> 2. It is assumed that there is something immoral about this. --> *What is immoral about it?* We can't answer the question unless we know what exactly the premise is.


The development of morals may have an evolutionary aspect to it. Supposing our ancestors realizing certain sexual behaviors leading to STDs. 

Of course, people who are of the morally relativistic-bent may not care for such behavioral restrictions. Like children rebelling against the wisdom of their fathers.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Flying Triangle said:


> The development of morals may have an evolutionary aspect to it. Supposing our ancestors realizing certain sexual behaviors leading to STDs.


----------



## Flying Triangle (Feb 10, 2017)

@FlaviaGemina argues: Condom (contraceptives), therefore the principles of yesterday no longer apply(?). 

Did I interpret that correctly?


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Flying Triangle said:


> @*FlaviaGemina* argues: Condom (contraceptives), therefore the principles of yesterday no longer apply(?).
> 
> Did I interpret that correctly?


What I meant was that due to the availability of condoms the risk of contracting an STD through double penetration is no (or only a little) higher than through vaginal penetration.
So, yes… basically if the risk that led to the original ‘prohibition’ is no longer a risk, the principle no longer applies. The moral feeling of those who condemn the practice is still ‘justified’ to some extent in that they cannot help feeling this way, but the feeling should no longer be used as a reliable guideline for how to act/ or how to judge those who don’t share that feeling.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

FlaviaGemina said:


> What I meant was that due to the availability of condoms the risk of contracting an STD through double penetration is no (or only a little) higher than through vaginal penetration.
> So, yes… basically if the risk that led to the original ‘prohibition’ is no longer a risk, the principle no longer applies. The moral feeling of those who condemn the practice is still ‘justified’ to some extent in that they cannot help feeling this way, but the feeling should no longer be used as a reliable guideline for how to act/ or how to judge those who don’t share that feeling.


Primitive technology does not completely render instinct obsolete though. Sure, proper and vigilant condom usage greatly reduces the odds, but a lot of people are neither proper nor vigilant in general, much less with their condoms. And even when used properly, incidents can still occur.

Instinct is more of a failsafe than technology in the vast majority of cases. Only rarely have human achievements risen above our nature in any meaningful way. The fact that it has happened at all is what allowed us to transcend from animals to demigods, and that's with a >99% failure rate.


----------



## Flying Triangle (Feb 10, 2017)

@FlaviaGemina, gotcha. 

Like I said, Wolves value chastity while Rabbits do not. :wink:


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Dante Scioli said:


> Primitive technology does not completely render instinct obsolete though. Sure, proper and vigilant condom usage greatly reduces the odds, but a lot of people are neither proper nor vigilant in general, much less with their condoms. And even when used properly, incidents can still occur.
> 
> Instinct is more of a failsafe than technology in the vast majority of cases. Only rarely have human achievements risen above our nature in any meaningful way. The fact that it has happened at all is what allowed us to transcend from animals to demigods, and that's with a >99% failure rate.


There is some truth in that and I agree that instincts are valuable. 
The problem I have with “moralising” is not that it is based on instincts. On the contrary, if you are aware what particular instinct/ problem the moral judgement is based on, that makes it a very rational judgement. But many people have moral judgements about such questions while being oblivious to or outright denying any knowledge of the original problem that gave rise to the moral prohibition.
LOL, I’m speaking academse today 
Here’s another example.
Person A: “OMG, girl X and boy Y are friends! Men and women can’t be friends!”
Person B: “Why not?”
Person A: “OMG, it’s unusual/ inappropriate/ …”
Person B: “Why?”
Person A: “Because people aren’t normally friends with the opposite sex.”
Person B: “Do you mean because they might be sexually attracted?”
Person A: *Shriek* *Blush* *Shock* *Horror*.

What I mean is that making these things taboo prevents people from looking at things on a case-by-case basis.

Of course, double penetration without condoms is risky and also more risky than single vaginal penetration without a condom.

But single vaginal penetration without a condom is also more risky than single vaginal penetration with a condom.

Single vaginal penetration without a condom is probably more risky than single anal penetration with a condom (barring accidents).

I’d say the use or non-use of a condom is more significant than the number of partners.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Anyway, @JayShambles, seeing as this is a random and purely theoretical question, why did you not include a scenario where a man has had a threesome with two women? How should that man's new girl friend react?


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

FlaviaGemina said:


> I’d say the use or non-use of a condom is more significant than the number of partners.


This is correct on a simple one-to-one comparison of the acts themselves, but everything is interconnected and I think the human subconscious is very aware of that and seeks patterns.

Most people would be more horrified to learn of a case of double penetration with condoms than a case of vaginal penetration without a condom for reasons that extend beyond a limited appraisal of the two acts. It is indicative of a person's decisionmaking process, the choices they make, their morals and intentions. It strongly suggests many things about their character and lifestyle in general. Certainly those assumptions are not guaranteed to be correct, but they are probably correct (in the sense of probability).

I think the human subconscious is quite good at estimating probability, weighing risk, and making appropriate judgments. The degree to which people apply a conscious sense of certainty to uncertain probability can justifiably be scrutinized, but the visceral suspicion I think is entirely reasonable.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Dante Scioli said:


> This is correct on a simple one-to-one comparison of the acts themselves, but everything is interconnected and I think the human subconscious is very aware of that and seeks patterns.
> 
> Most people would be more horrified to learn of a case of double penetration with condoms than a case of vaginal penetration without a condom for reasons that extend beyond a limited appraisal of the two acts. It is indicative of a person's decisionmaking process, the choices they make, their morals and intentions. It strongly suggests many things about their character and lifestyle in general. Certainly those assumptions are not guaranteed to be correct, but they are probably correct (in the sense of probability).
> 
> I think the human subconscious is quite good at estimating probability, weighing risk, and making appropriate judgments. The degree to which people apply a conscious sense of certainty to uncertain probability can justifiably be scrutinized, but the visceral suspicion I think is entirely reasonable.


True, but people shouldn’t necessarily apply their probabilistic intuitions to a concrete person that they actually know. That’s the difference between hearing about a hypothetical case of double-penetration and taking a real individual seriously.

I think what most people imagine when they hear about double-penetration is this scenario:
~ Boyfriend was a “pervert” and pressured girlfriend into it, e.g. because he wanted to bring his mate along or because he sees double-penetration as an act of domination. Girlfriend didn’t really want to but did it anyway to please boyfriend. In this case, it’s also more likely that the focus was on the physical act and affection played less of a role. ~
In most cases, this is probably going to be true. If it is true, then yes, we can assume that the girl has a weak personality and acted “immorally” because she allowed herself to be pressured against her will. But the boyfriend also acted immorally because he ignored her wishes and was only interested in his own pleasure.

But it’s also possible that the following happened:
~ The girl liked/ loved both of them and wanted to have sex with both of them simultaneously. All of them were happy, nobody was jealous. ~
In what way did she act immorally now? 
This is probably the less likely scenario. (But maybe one reason it remains less likely is precisely because people associate the concept with the first scenario. This discourages people who would be interested in the second scenario. - -> self-fulfilling prophecy.)

It's the same with any question like that.

"What would you think of a drug addict?" --> Most people would probably have a negative reaction and minimize the importance of external factors that can lead to drug dependency.

Your best friend tells you that they used to be a drug addict. --> Most people would be more willing to find out why their friend took drugs and would even understand some of the reasons.


----------



## desert lynx (Apr 11, 2012)

I don't typically want to know a ton of details about past sex. Just tell me you're std free.

So...Women - would you date a male that has been double penetrated before?


----------



## Scarab (Jun 14, 2014)

Okay, hypothetical question here... would you ladies out there date a guy that has been DP'd by two women wearing Strap Ons and the guy just happened to have nipple clamps attached to him?

Hypothetically, of course.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Flying Triangle said:


> @*FlaviaGemina*, gotcha.
> 
> Like I said, Wolves value chastity while Rabbits do not. :wink:


Wolves are nearly extinct in many parts of the world. Rabbits are not.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

I need to be fully awake before I open these threads; I initially thought that this had something to do with double dipping. :bwink:


----------



## master of time and space (Feb 16, 2017)

I personally would have no problem dating someone who had been Double Penetrated. What’s the problem??

Funny how the men seem have issues around sexual morality. When a woman is on the receiving end, oh! she’s a whore/slut but its OK for the men to be on the giving end, the fucking hero's, give them a fucking medal.

Double standard bullshit by the men as usual. Its OK for men to fuck 100's of women but the women have to remain virgins. What a load of bollocks! 

Makes me feel ashamed of being man sometimes.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

JayShambles said:


> If a girl you were into openly expressed herself and told you she had been double penetrated by two men before, would that turn you off?
> 
> If you only found out while you were dating would that make a difference?


what an incredible strange way of phrasing all that. "openly expressed"?????? Really????

in any case, I've dated ladies who have been dp'd. and more. 

before, during, and after I dated them. I've also dated ladies who were monogamous, before, during,and after.


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

Scarab said:


> Okay, hypothetical question here... would you ladies out there date a guy that has been DP'd by two women wearing Strap Ons and the guy just happened to have nipple clamps attached to him?
> 
> Hypothetically, of course.


Hm. Basically asking: "Would you date a guy that's been sex-clubbing?"


----------



## Scarab (Jun 14, 2014)

Chesire Tower said:


> I need to be fully awake before I open these threads; I initially thought that this had something to do with double dipping. :bwink:


It could possible be that one of the guys double dipped. :blushed:


----------



## Flying Triangle (Feb 10, 2017)

FlaviaGemina said:


> Wolves are nearly extinct in many parts of the world. Rabbits are not.


They're making a comeback in 'Merica. In Europe, too I imagine. roud:


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

FlaviaGemina said:


> There is some truth in that and I agree that instincts are valuable.
> The problem I have with “moralising” is not that it is based on instincts. On the contrary, if you are aware what particular instinct/ problem the moral judgement is based on, that makes it a very rational judgement. But many people have moral judgements about such questions while being oblivious to or outright denying any knowledge of the original problem that gave rise to the moral prohibition.


You're scenarios are interesting - I don't know if it was intentional - but they probably reflect the exact opposite judgement of those moralizing it negatively, since the first is a mutual act within relationship and the later is a more direct reflection of promiscuity, which is more of the main suggestion of what people dislike about the matter.

Talking within the more general context, I am not convinced that the moralization of it promiscuity has as much of an effect as people think. Let's say - in somewhat of an unnecessary hypothetical since this is mostly true - that I don't judge it as morally or ethically wrong, I don't think people who do that are bad people in anyway - but simply as a matter of taste - I wouldn't want that in a partner I'd consider for a serious relationship.
That in itself has no moral repercussions - it is fairly reasonable for people to decide their own standards for a partner, nobody is entitled to qualify for other people's standards, if I was promiscuous myself some might claim it's hypocritical, but even then it is fairly common for people to have different standards then themselves (Physical strength, money, complementary internal strengths, etc). 
Now... Let's say - for this complete hypothetical scenario - that we take the conservative framework away, and as it turns out, an overwhelming majority of men feel this way. It might even be that without a conservative association to sexual moralism to rebel against the point of virtue signaling that you don't care loses it's sting and even more men express feeling this way. In this distilled scenario nobody outright justifies in their minds that someone is a bad person for promiscuity, it just so happens that almost nobody wants a serious relationship with someone who is.

Would that change anything? Would mass rejection be better than opposing moralism? Would there be any less slut shaming in such a society, despite the fact we seem to shame anything else that makes people less desirable mates? Would anyone feel better about themselves? Or would it actually make it harder because there would be less to stand on in opposition to the source of rejection? Where would be left or the the moralization of sexual liberty to stand without a need to oppose the moralization of sexual repression?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Flying Triangle said:


> The development of morals may have an evolutionary aspect to it. Supposing our ancestors realizing certain sexual behaviors leading to STDs.


Then it wouldn't only apply to women. 
I expect it originates from women being mens property. There were laws against female promiscuous behaviour much earlier. 

Besides, there were that many diseases, refraining from sex wouldn't be particularly beneficial anyway. If they didn't get stds they'd likely get other diseases, that's if they weren't eaten or sacrificed first. They also had no TV, everyone fucks when they've no Tv.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Scarab said:


> Okay, hypothetical question here... would you ladies out there date a guy that has been DP'd by two women wearing Strap Ons and the guy just happened to have nipple clamps attached to him?
> 
> Hypothetically, of course.


Indeed; as I was likely one of the female(s) doing it. 



JayShambles said:


> If a girl you were into openly expressed herself and told you she had been double penetrated by two men before, would that turn you off?
> 
> If you only found out while you were dating would that make a difference?


I would think, she seem(s) rather open to more question(s).

_My response_ *::*

"And, what about triple penetration? Phallus within the mouth? Ever been penetrated by a female-specimen? Brb, getting a drink, this'll be good."


----------



## Mange (Jan 9, 2011)

i probably have already. :idunno: fuck it. idc.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Kyn said:


> Then it wouldn't only apply to women.
> I expect it originates from women being mens property. There were laws against female promiscuous behaviour much earlier.
> 
> Besides, there were that many diseases, refraining from sex wouldn't be particularly beneficial anyway. If they didn't get stds they'd likely get other diseases, that's if they weren't eaten or sacrificed first. They also had no TV, everyone fucks when they've no Tv.


I think it more likely has to do with women's tendency to be the ones who get pregnant. It makes sense for women to be more choosy about mates and for society to be more restrictive of their sexual behaviour.


----------



## ColorfulButterfly (Oct 7, 2016)

Aeneas321 said:


> this is an interesting question, how's this one though:
> 
> would you date a girl who has only been with two guys and has had a threesome with those 2 guys
> 
> ...


LOL, Selena Gomez or Taylor Swift?


----------



## JayShambles (Aug 9, 2016)

Catwalk said:


> Indeed; as I was likely one of the female(s) doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey Catwalk, sorry to let you down, but I haven't. 

What about you? Have you been triple penetrated by 3 different men at the same time?


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

You won't find this shit out about a partner often, so it must be intuited (how is a subject for another post).

I am not attracted to women who entertain multiple sexual partners at once. There are many personality traits associated with such behaviour - such as flightiness, an avoidant attachment and poor impulse control - that I'd rather not invite into my life, especially now that I'm seeking a woman to marry. I have always believed that sleeping around a lot doesn't just devalue the emotional nature of sexual contact, it devalues you as a person. But I guess it's not too surprising we are where we are today, as most women my age have been primed by our culture to fear intimacy. I will leave you to judge the results.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

JayShambles said:


> Hey Catwalk, sorry to let you down, but I haven't.
> 
> What about you? Have you been triple penetrated by 3 different men at the same time?


No. It is highly_ unlikely_ I will engage with coitus with more than one-meat sac [or be able to take that much phallus at once]; although, I would be dishonest to say I haven't pondered the feat.

There are certainly pleasurable benefit(s) of anal stimulus + vaginal stimulus + clitoral stimulus simultaneously to which should be considered.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Tropes said:


> You're scenarios are interesting - I don't know if it was intentional - but they probably reflect the exact opposite judgement of those moralizing it negatively, since the first is a mutual act within relationship and the later is a more direct reflection of promiscuity, which is more of the main suggestion of what people dislike about the matter.


That's a good point. I hadn’t thought of it that way. I was looking at it from the perspective that my mother’s/ grandmother’s generation (of women, not the men) would think. They’re a weird mix of traditional sexual morals and pseudo-feminism. They’d basically assume that any kind of “unusual” sexual activities must somehow involve violence against women. They’d think that no woman would ever *want* to be double-penetrated because it must necessarily involve violence, emotional shallowness etc. They would automatically blame the man and refuse to imagine that the woman took part in it actively, that option just doesn’t exist at all. (Footnote: Most of the stuff they find “unusual” would be seen as totally normal by today’s young people and gets discussed on this forum nonchalantly every day. E.g. oral sex = “A man ramming his smelly, pimply penis down a woman’s throat.”
A woman receiving oral sex? = that only happens in lesbian relationships. < -- this is all according to my mother’s generation)


So, you’d think they’d like my second scenario better, but they don’t really, because that’s when they tip over into (slut) shaming, if they can imagine this scenario at all. But, as far as my mother’s generation is concerned, the shaming wouldn’t be related to promiscuity so much, but rather to a complete denial of scenario 2. I.e. the woman volunteered to take part in SCENARIO 1 after all. So why did she allow herself to be “violated” by two men? (The violation isn’t in the number of men, but in the assumption that men have more power and women are victims [even of normal sexual intercourse]… So basically, we’re right back to where we started. SCENARIO 2 just doesn’t even exist).


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

BlackDog said:


> I think it more likely has to do with women's tendency to be the ones who get pregnant. It makes sense for women to be more choosy about mates and for society to be more restrictive of their sexual behaviour.


It does make sense for women to be more choosy about mates. It doesn't make sense for society to restrict women's sexual behaviour and not men's in order to prevent pregnancy. Men could pup their slaves or any woman who wasn't owned by another man, as often as they liked. They weren't concerned about the possibility of a baby being born, they had no issues throwing an illegitimate child (even their own) out with the trash. So why would it matter if a woman got pregnant? They just throw it away and everything's back to how it was. She's lost no intellectual, physical or reproductive ability. The only thing she's lost is some irrationally perceived 'value'. If the child's welfare is irrelevant, then pregnancy is just a temporary inconvenience for the mother. 

If preventing pregnancy was the underlying reason, then men's sexuality would have been equally restricted. That would have been a more effective preventive measure, which would have made sense.


----------



## Witch of Oreo (Jun 23, 2014)

I just hope she doesn't mind if I pop a boner in front of her at that.


----------



## Flying Triangle (Feb 10, 2017)

BlackDog said:


> I think it more likely has to do with women's tendency to be the ones who get pregnant. It makes sense for women to be more choosy about mates and for society to be more restrictive of their sexual behaviour.


Historically, women being the limiting factor and the protected/coveted of our species. 

But, of course one could bring up the argument that technology and artificial wombs would render them no longer so just like the liberation of contraceptives. 

But, at what cost? A stable family and society, as you can see today. Just ask the community of guinea pigs:


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

FlaviaGemina said:


> So, you’d think they’d like my second scenario better, but they don’t really, because that’s when they tip over into (slut) shaming, if they can imagine this scenario at all.


I don't know if this was hypothetical or not, but the image of a daughter-mother-grandmother conversation about double penetration is too good to give up.

I am not sure if I would agree that their stance can be called pseudo-feminism, it's very much in the fundamentals of most modern feminist beliefs and ideals, take those away and all you are left with is the now dead movement of individualist feminism.


----------



## Scarab (Jun 14, 2014)

Catwalk said:


> Indeed; as I was likely one of the female(s) doing it.


Was it on a catwalk? My memories are fuzzy.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Tropes said:


> I don't know if this was hypothetical or not, but the image of a daughter-mother-grandmother conversation about double penetration is too good to give up.
> 
> I am not sure if I would agree that their stance can be called pseudo-feminism, it's very much in the fundamentals of most modern feminist beliefs and ideals, take those away and all you are left with is the now dead movement of individualist feminism.


Haha, I haven't had that particular conversation, but I know what my mother's attitude would be.
I also know lots of older women through a meditation group and they are exactly like this: sex is something that men want ans and that is inherently harmful to women.

I've come up with a diagram to illustrate the historical development of this, but I can't draw it right now. Will do it after work.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## Aridela (Mar 14, 2015)

Gee by the looks of it, I must be a slut...


----------



## DualGnosis (Apr 6, 2013)

Would I date a girl who's been DP'ed before? Absolutely. 

"Sharing is caring. And DP can be fun." - Barney the Dinosaur


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

It must be some form of self-punishment to date me after having that experience.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Kyn said:


> It does make sense for women to be more choosy about mates. It doesn't make sense for society to restrict women's sexual behaviour and not men's in order to prevent pregnancy. Men could pup their slaves or any woman who wasn't owned by another man, as often as they liked. They weren't concerned about the possibility of a baby being born, they had no issues throwing an illegitimate child (even their own) out with the trash. So why would it matter if a woman got pregnant? They just throw it away and everything's back to how it was. She's lost no intellectual, physical or reproductive ability. The only thing she's lost is some irrationally perceived 'value'. If the child's welfare is irrelevant, then pregnancy is just a temporary inconvenience for the mother.
> 
> If preventing pregnancy was the underlying reason, then men's sexuality would have been equally restricted. That would have been a more effective preventive measure, which would have made sense.


Maternity is a way more intuitive concept and immediate concern than paternity. We didn't even always know about paternity, that had to be discovered. We always knew who a mother was. 

Society used to be really different. Today if a man gets a woman pregnant he is held responsible for that child, either by paying child support or being involved in the child's life. A man getting a woman pregnant is a big deal for him and his family and can suck up a lot of resources. It wasn't always like that, men weren't always responsible for children they fathered if they weren't married to the woman. There was also no such thing as a paternity test or a doctor who could tell you with fairly good accuracy when you conceived. 

A single woman who gets pregnant in pre-modern society doesn't have a government armed with technology who is going to step in and defend her, and often single women didn't have very many rights or opportunities to support themselves. Which means the woman's child would become not only her responsibility but the responsibility of her family. It would also be a bastard child, so depending on what year and location we are talking about might be excluded from any kind of inheritance. The father could go on with his life as usual in most cases and even outright deny paternity if he wanted. 

In few societies that I know of was it the norm to kill healthy offspring (ancients Greeks would leave deformed babies on cliffsides to die), but even if it were pregnancy is still a big biological investment. Not only did the woman just grow that thing inside her for nine months which inhibited her ability to perform manual labour and made her unmarriable, she also gave birth to it which was pretty dangerous and risky for women until fairly recently. A woman and a woman's family have always had a lot more to lose when it comes to promiscuity and reproduction. If you have a daughter and a son it makes way more sense to be concerned about her sexual habits than those of the male.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

JayShambles said:


> If a girl you were into openly expressed herself and told you she had been double penetrated by two men before, would that turn you off?
> 
> If you only found out while you were dating would that make a difference?


Sorry for answering with another question but *what's dating for you?*, I'm not english native and for us (regionally) we have a variety of concepts and descriptions, but english uses a one-word for many scenarios. Us? we have concepts based on several words.

Why do I ask you that? because I would still go on dates with this woman, but... does "*dating for you*" involves sex? right away? or in the mid term? to me it's an option, not because were are dating we will have sex, or we will kiss. This has been discussed before on a dating thread. 

Yes I would still go on getting to know her. Having something? not sure. Ending up in a relationship or even marriage? I dunno but I don't say no (for marriage I feel I'm close to a "no"). To me it's not just what people do, it's why they do it, and in such cases it takes time to get to know and understand the person. Does this person seems "not as good as a virgin?" no fucking way, I don't have that kind of logic.


Had a friend (female) who did all kinds of things while traveling around the world. Had a 3some, even had sex with one woman and to me, she was an amazing person who it was difficult not to consider as an option. Those things were part of a past of exploration and she got her own answers, it's not the same as "I did it once and that's it, it's possible I would do it again". There is a part where we judge or feel weird, but there is also a more realistic part of "lifestyle", incompatibility.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

BlackDog said:


> Maternity is a way more intuitive concept and immediate concern than paternity. We didn't even always know about paternity, that had to be discovered. We always knew who a mother was.
> 
> Society used to be really different. Today if a man gets a woman pregnant he is held responsible for that child, either by paying child support or being involved in the child's life. A man getting a woman pregnant is a big deal for him and his family and can suck up a lot of resources. It wasn't always like that, men weren't always responsible for children they fathered if they weren't married to the woman. There was also no such thing as a paternity test or a doctor who could tell you with fairly good accuracy when you conceived.
> 
> ...


Why did it make her unmarriable? 
The reason being that she was seen as 'used goods', raising another man's child doesn't even need to come into it. Men wanted something brand new. Brand new offers no reproductive benefits. So why did it matter? 

I understand what you're saying about maternal investment, which is why I was surprised to read how common infanticide used to be and how readily it was accepted or even encouraged. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

I think it's also interesting to consider homosexual practices in ancient Greece. Even though pregnancy obviously wasn't a concern, they young boys were still expected to be pursued by the men and not 'give it up' too easily. As freeborn boys they had more rights than women and slaves, but still occupied a lower social standing than men. The courtship was very similar to more recent courting practices when women were gaining equality. The same sexual dynamics were present when the same social dynamics were present. This possibly indicates that who's allowed to do what, is determined by who's seen as 'better' and more important, not by potential pregnancy.


----------



## desert lynx (Apr 11, 2012)

Chesire Tower said:


> I need to be fully awake before I open these threads; I initially thought that this had something to do with double dipping. :bwink:


I can only assume this is what you're talking about?


----------



## shazam (Oct 18, 2015)

Well I probably wouldn't care to know. Like while I'm kissing her I'm not thinking "hmm, has she been spit roasted, sandwiched, has she been given the rusty trumpet?". I suppose it wouldn't matter. But what I do think sometimes is if a girl wants a bigger piece and opts for a big dildo, I get to fuck her ass. It's a good deal.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

I would, but I am not looking to wed the mother of my children. If she is open to something like that, it probably means she would let you do all sorts of degenerate things to her. 

Honestly when I am with a woman I just assume she has had more partners and has done more freaky shit than me to begin with.



Chesire Tower said:


> I need to be fully awake before I open these threads; I initially thought that this had something to do with double dipping. :bwink:


Well it sort of is like double dipping

but with dicks


----------



## shazam (Oct 18, 2015)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> It must be some form of self-punishment to date me after having that experience.


Ugh yeah, pull my hair bro.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Kyn said:


> Why did it make her unmarriable?
> The reason being that she was seen as 'used goods', raising another man's child doesn't even need to come into it. Men wanted something brand new. Brand new offers no reproductive benefits. So why did it matter?
> 
> I understand what you're saying about maternal investment, which is why I was surprised to read how common infanticide used to be and how readily it was accepted or even encouraged.
> ...


Women are, and have always been, valuable. That's why we are supposed to get men to "earn" our attention, it emphasizes our value. It's also the source of a lot of feminine power. Men are relatively disposable in this regard, their value is more utilitarian and unstable. 

I think paternity does come into it. The aversion to "used goods" doesn't spring out of the ground, it's most likely based on some kind of utility and that is why it is so nearly ubiquitous a concept. A virgin woman has no chance of already being pregnant when you have sex with her. That helps to secure paternity. Obviously this isn't fail safe and women have always cheated and lied about who the father was, but that's probably why it is so common for people in any given society to police women's sexuality and shame them for this kind of behaviour. Men want to know that they're not raising someone else's genetic offspring, and the poor behaviour of a few women can make things difficult for everybody else. 

Also, we live in a very individualistic society right now but that wasn't always the case. Your sexuality - especially if you were a woman - wasn't your own, it belonged to your family as well. If you squandered your reproductive potential it affected people besides yourself because there were other people involved who were responsible for you and your child, and who had a vested interest in your lineage. 

In cultures where paternity isn't formally recognized (rare these days) women's sexuality is not policed nearly as much, if at all. The women of the Mosuo people, for example, are free to have as much sex with as many people as they like. But they also have no word for "father" in their language, and all the men of the tribe are considered to be uncles. There are a few cultures that exist on the plateaus of Tibet that practice a rare form of polyandry. They do have the concept of a father in those societies but women marry multiple men who are all brothers, and she assigns children to each of them regardless of who the real father is so that they each have a child and everything is fair. There is less angst there about true paternity because at the very least the children the men are providing for are their nieces and nephews. Some tribes in South America believe that paternity can be shared, so women are allowed to sleep with multiple men and claim more than one father to her child. 

What is rare is to find a culture that assigns formal paternity and has a high level of paternal care involved that also permits or promotes female sexual promiscuity.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

This is really off topic now, but I used to always wonder why patriarchy is such a popular strategy and matriarchy is pretty much non-existent. There are some cultures which resemble matriarchies, and at the very least least are matrilineal, but to my knowledge there has never been a truly matriarchal culture, neither extinct nor extant. I used to think maybe it was because men are stronger and they wrestled women into submission or something, but that seems laughably childish to me now. I expect that matriarchy doesn't work because it offers no real advantage.

Maternal investment is assumed and inevitable, but paternal investment is much less stable. It needs to be socially enforced. Patriarchy, whatever its flaws, does stress paternity and in a large population I think this is important. Maybe it works when your numbers are small to call all the men Uncle, but obviously once your society is in the millions the odds of any given child being directly related to you is pretty slim. Which could be why the only near-matriarchal societies that have been observed have been relatively small, remote tribes. The exception to this off the top of my head are the Iroquois, which probably numbered nearly twenty thousand at their height of power, but they lived in smaller tribes and that population was the total number combined. Also, they were matrilineal but had marriage and a concept of paternity.

Anyway, I find this interesting. I wonder if matriarchy is possible on a large scale, and if it is why it has never happened?


----------



## Flying Triangle (Feb 10, 2017)

BlackDog said:


> I wonder if matriarchy is possible on a large scale, and if it is why it has never happened?


You're living in it.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Flying Triangle said:


> Behold, you're living in it.
> 
> The Anglo-sphere and Europe are all matriarchal for the past 40~50 years despite what the matriarchs still claim.
> 
> I chalk that up to matriarchs being perpetually discontent.


We're not a matriarchy. A true matriarchy would observe matrilineal lines of descent, would see women as the heads of the household, and the majority of formal political poisitions held by women. We are not patriarchal either though, we are fairly egalitarian but with a slight patriarchal bent. It's no longer mandatory but the majority of children still take their father's surname rather than their mother's, and many women still take their husband's name upon marriage. Women may have a lot of influence in politics because they vote in larger numbers than men do, but they do not hold the majority of formal positions of power. 

Patriarchy doesn't mean women are oppressed and matriarchy doesn't mean women have it best. They are anthropological and sociological terms related to social structure. We are not a matriarchy.


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

who cares if it's a "matriarchy"?


if it's a patriarchy - fuck bitches
if it's a matriarchy - fuck bitches

as long as in a matriarchy ur not duped into paying for their meals(or anything else for that matter), i don't see the issue


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Toru Okada said:


> I would, but I am not looking to wed the mother of my children. If she is open to something like that, it probably means she would let you do all sorts of degenerate things to her.
> 
> Honestly when I am with a woman I just assume she has had more partners and has done more freaky shit than me to begin with.
> 
> ...


 @Tropes this is a prime example of the attitude I described before. 
I.e. the woman has things done to her (and those things are presumably nit enjoyable for her, as she is 'letting' the man 'do them to her').

Also a very nice example of the virgin(potential mother)/ whore dichotomy.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

BlackDog said:


> Women are, and have always been, valuable. That's why we are supposed to get men to "earn" our attention, it emphasizes our value. It's also the source of a lot of feminine power. Men are relatively disposable in this regard, their value is more utilitarian and unstable.
> 
> I think paternity does come into it. The aversion to "used goods" doesn't spring out of the ground, it's most likely based on some kind of utility and that is why it is so nearly ubiquitous a concept. A virgin woman has no chance of already being pregnant when you have sex with her. That helps to secure paternity. Obviously this isn't fail safe and women have always cheated and lied about who the father was, but that's probably why it is so common for people in any given society to police women's sexuality and shame them for this kind of behaviour. Men want to know that they're not raising someone else's genetic offspring, and the poor behaviour of a few women can make things difficult for everybody else.


Paternity might be a factor. The aversion to 'used goods' ordinarily applies to property, not people. Paternity can be as secure with any woman as it is with a virgin. It takes 4 weeks. So after 1 month, a woman who has previously carried a baby to term and therefore proven her ability to do so, would be represent a much more secure paternal investment than a virgin would. Chances of dying during childbirth are higher for the first one. The virgin might not even be fertile. Waiting 28 days would likely save him wasting 9 months + of time and resources. The whole virgin ensuring paternity notion makes little sense as a reproduction strategy, which explains why all the other animals haven't adopted it (I think there's one species that appears to seek out 'virgins', if I recall correctly, it's an insect).



> Also, we live in a very individualistic society right now but that wasn't always the case. Your sexuality - especially if you were a woman - wasn't your own, it belonged to your family as well. If you squandered your reproductive potential it affected people besides yourself because there were other people involved who were responsible for you and your child, and who had a vested interest in your lineage.
> 
> In cultures where paternity isn't formally recognized (rare these days) women's sexuality is not policed nearly as much, if at all. The women of the Mosuo people, for example, are free to have as much sex with as many people as they like. But they also have no word for "father" in their language, and all the men of the tribe are considered to be uncles. There are a few cultures that exist on the plateaus of Tibet that practice a rare form of polyandry. They do have the concept of a father in those societies but women marry multiple men who are all brothers, and she assigns children to each of them regardless of who the real father is so that they each have a child and everything is fair. There is less angst there about true paternity because at the very least the children the men are providing for are their nieces and nephews. Some tribes in South America believe that paternity can be shared, so women are allowed to sleep with multiple men and claim more than one father to her child.
> 
> What is rare is to find a culture that assigns formal paternity and has a high level of paternal care involved that also permits or promotes female sexual promiscuity.


As you say, it's rare to find a culture that isn't or has never been patriarchal. The Krueng tribe in Cambodia didn't attach social shame to female sexuality or men raising another man's child. As a result, the father could choose if he wanted to marry or not. If he didn't want to marry her, then another man would step in and marry her instead. In terms of paternity investment, it would pay off. She's already proven herself fertile. All subsequent children will likely be his, even though the first one isn't.


----------



## Robert2928 (Apr 6, 2012)

Such an odd question...I love it. 

Would her being double penetrated by two men before turn me off? It would be awkward once the truth set in that it's not some kind of joke but it would only make more curious as to what lead up to it happening. Like I'd have to hear the situation and access whether or not she would be worth the potential hassle or not. How frequently does she get double penetrated is the real questions? Will she want me to get involved if she has an affinity towards it. 

If she told me while we were dating I might care less because the "damage has been done" so to speak. If she's being honest then she might be catching feelings so...I might be prepared to exit stage left because I try to limit social obligations. I would hope it's brought up early in dating hopefully before sex happens otherwise...I'd be kinda pissed under certain circumstances like having sex without protection...but if we are being honest if I were dating one of the first things I'm doing is getting her ass tested


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

BlackDog said:


> Maternal investment is assumed and inevitable, but paternal investment is much less stable. It needs to be socially enforced.


Women can and do abandon and abort and give away their babies, and this becomes a social issue too. 

Maternal instinct (among other factors... but this got me thinking instinct) may prevent this from happening, depending, but I wouldn't say it's inevitable. 

Is there paternal instinct? I'd imagine it would look something like primitively marking someone as territory. Etching your name into their tree trunk. Rubbing your face all over them. Lol.

The woman's own instinct isn't really negated within this, when it comes to her biology at least, which is maybe why we've gone along. So long as she isn't being forced into something that feels wrong from a biological stand-point (like an incestuous relationship or being betrothed to someone she's not otherwise physically compatible with for whatever reason).

But yea, I guess my point is that I'm not sure I believe that paternal investment has to necessarily be socially enforced anymore than maternal investment does. 

Men who had children they didn't claim as their own with unmarried women were usually still married with "legitimate" children too, and therefore had a sense of being "father" anyway. Women have to invest more time in bonding with each individual child (at least nine months) which is maybe why it's not as typically easy for her to pick and choose who's who when it comes to identifying as "mother".

So society dictates where the man invests to a degree, but I don't think it's dictating the investment process period... if that makes sense. And maybe we're even saying the same thing. Idk. 

I guess a man would be expected to invest in legitimate children over children with a mistress in the past too, even if that were the opposite of where he'd choose to otherwise... so kinda further complicating how society has enforced paternity, and how the carelessness of men or something may have gotten exaggerated down the line (they also married for political, loveless reasons). Maybe taking a potentially natural process and confusing it.

We are sort of seeing a reverse now where men don't so much get a choice in whom they invest at all (if you knocked her up and she decided to keep it it's yours), but we as women increasingly have been. It's safer, easier, less stigmatized, etc. But the fact that this is a new development (women's choice) I think points to society as a factor all around.

And I'm just rambling now. Go on with your well constructed arguments. Lol.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Veggie said:


> Women can and do abandon and abort and give away their babies, and this becomes a social issue too.
> 
> Maternal instinct (among other factors... but this got me thinking instinct) may prevent this from happening, depending, but I wouldn't say it's inevitable.
> 
> ...


Paternal instinct is something my father had for my sister and not for me. It is often a father-daughter connection. Black Dog's father would beat you up for disrespecting her. Mine would do the same. 

I was listening to this song earlier:






Now, ain't nobody tell us it was fair
No love from my daddy, ‘cause the coward wasn't there
He passed away and I didn't cry, ‘cause my anger
Wouldn't let me feel for a stranger
They say I'm wrong and I'm heartless, but all along
I was looking for a father he was gone
I hung around with the thugs
And even though they sold drugs
They showed a young brother love


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Paternal instinct is something my father had for my sister and not for me. It is often a father-daughter connection. Black Dog's father would beat you up for disrespecting her. Mine would do the same.


Considering the emphasis that's been placed on producing male heirs throughout history I don't know if that's necessarily true. Lol.

And my dad's pretty protective, but I don't know if he's the type to go around beating people up either.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Veggie said:


> Considering the emphasis that's been placed on producing male heirs throughout history I don't know if that's necessarily true. Lol.
> 
> And my dad's pretty protective, but I don't know if he's the type to go around beating people up either.


Men are often the hitmen of women. Like, why do a lot of guys fight? Over women! lol. My mother was similar. My father was her hitman once I was too big for her to slap around anymore. He was her muscle.

And I think that is part of why I am so out of control. They say hitting kids doesn't work. But what is "working" to us? Breakage. Control. Spanking does not work because it does not control people. I agree with that. But why should we raise kids who are easily controlled?


----------



## JayShambles (Aug 9, 2016)

FlaviaGemina said:


> Anyway, @JayShambles, seeing as this is a random and purely theoretical question, why did you not include a scenario where a man has had a threesome with two women? How should that man's new girl friend react?


Sorry, I realised I didn't respond to this. I feel that if I did write that question instead of this it wouldn't be getting the attention it has been getting . 

Not sure. Ladies, feel free to answer to that question though


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

I dated a dude who had had a FFM threesome. We weren't officially together when he told me, just kinda in the (frequent) late night talking getting to know you phase, and he grabbed my leg very reassuringly when he did, and I was like aw. Is this guy afraid of losing me or something? That was kind of more what stuck with me. His seeming concern for my reaction. So I'm sure delivery and all plays a part in learning these things.

Somehow writing this out I feel like that still comes back on me and my desirability. You've been with dudes who have had threesomes? #Rubber.

I think it's funny the serious feministic turn this thread took too. Seems inevitable really. Suggest something might be slutty, and it's the natural evolution of the conversation. I feel like even if women agree, then it turns into, oh, but reversed... reversed you know you'd still wanna jump on these balls gurl. To which of course the nuh uh dialogue would begin and... lol.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Veggie said:


> I dated a dude who had had a FFM threesome. We weren't officially together when he told me, just kinda in the (frequent) late night talking getting to know you phase, and he grabbed my leg very reassuringly when he did, and I was like aw. Is this guy afraid of losing me or something? That was kind of more what stuck with me. His seeming concern for my reaction. So I'm sure delivery and all plays a part in learning these things.
> 
> Somehow writing this out I feel like that still comes back on me and my desirability. You've been with dudes who have had threesomes? #Rubber.
> 
> I think it's funny the serious feministic turn this thread took too. Seems inevitable really. Suggest something might be slutty, and it's the natural evolution of the conversation. I feel like even if women agree, then it turns into, oh, but reversed... reversed you know you'd still wanna jump on these balls gurl. To which of course the nuh uh dialogue would begin and... lol.


I don't get it as a heterosexual male. I have one organ of pleasure. I guess two women would be nice but I can't do both at the same time, and trying to pick which to do what with would cause confusion. lol. Women have two holes of pleasure. Though many women probably don't like anal.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

@Veggie

I see what you're saying, and I agree with you that there probably is a paternal instinct and that not all women have a maternal one. When I said maternal investment is more assumed and inevitable I was partially speaking of maternity itself. Nobody has any doubt whether they're a mother or not. You either gave birth to a child or you didn't. With men this is much less clear, it's always possible that the woman you think is the mother of your child lied to you and it is really somebody else's. I mean, if you're lucky there's a family resemblance or something but until incredibly recently there was no such thing as a paternity test. 

If you look at societies around the globe and throughout history you will observe a variety of paternal strategies, ranging from high investment and shared parental duties all the way to men being assumed to have no relation to the child at all. The latter is pretty rare because most people figure out at some point that men contribute genetic material through sexual intercourse but it's not necessarily a highly intuitive concept. Motherhood is much more homogeneous cross-culturally, there is always at least _some_ maternal investment save for individual outliers that abandon their offspring. I think the culture with the highest level of paternal investment (as in, direct parental care) is a pygmy tribe where men are within reach of the infants about 45% of the time. That's much more than most cultures but the women still perform more than 50% of the care (if barely). I am not aware of any culture, ever, where women did not perform the majority of childcare and certainly none where maternity as a concept did not exist. 

What I mean when I say paternity needs to be enforced is that the concept needs to exist in the collective psyche of the society, it needs to be considered meaningful and/or significant, and there needs to be some kind of social expectation for the level of investment that paternity demands. The role of motherhood, at least in practice, doesn't seem to change all that much in principle cross-culturally, but clearly there are many ways to "do" fatherhood. 

(It's also worth noting that just because a society doesn't enforce paternity, that doesn't mean men have nothing to do with the children ever. It just means there isn't a biological father type relationship. Men still care about their siblings and their sister's offspring, and often provide for them. The connnection just isn't made between them and the children of the women they have sex with.)

I don't think we're really disagreeing here, to be honest. This is turning into more of a Ni fest, lol.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

JayShambles said:


> If a girl you were into openly expressed herself and told you she had been double penetrated by two men before, would that turn you off?
> 
> If you only found out while you were dating would that make a difference?


 *Speaking as a man who plans on dying a virgin:* why are men expected to have a problem with their girlfriends not being virgins before them? Guys are *expected* to have frequent sex, so unless guys are expected to be gay, that means women are also expected to have had sex.

Is this *actually* a surprise for guys to find out that their girlfriends have had sex before them?


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

Simpson17866 said:


> *Speaking as a man who plans on dying a virgin:* why are men expected to have a problem with their girlfriends not being virgins before them? Guys are *expected* to have frequent sex, so unless guys are expected to be gay, that means women are also expected to have had sex.


There is a positive relationship between the number of premarital sexual partners a woman has, and her likelihood of initiating a divorce:

https://ifstudies.org/blog/counteri...between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability/

I cannot find any study that suggests the same is true for men, but feel free to correct me.

I think this helps explain why we have a double standard insofar as sexual behaviour is concerned. Women who have a lot of casual sex are likely to stick with the habit for life, and it is in society's interest to shame such activity heavily. Low birth rates and high divorce rates are the result and form a recipe for disaster.



Simpson17866 said:


> Is this *actually* a surprise for guys to find out that their girlfriends have had sex before them?


What the shmucks need to realise is that somebody's sexual past is one of the best proxies available for their overall character, much better than their politics, accent or table manners (all three of which are rather superficial). You can figure out a lot indirectly by asking the right questions.

A girl who has taken two dicks at once in college is a girl who will screw the neighbour six months pregnant while you're out mowing the lawn. I am telling you, you can't fix damaged goods, so take evasive action.


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

Rock Of Ages said:


> A girl who has taken two dicks at once in college is a girl who will screw the neighbour six months pregnant while you're out mowing the lawn. I am telling you, you can't fix damaged goods, so take evasive action.


lmao!


----------



## Wiz (Apr 8, 2014)

Simpson17866 said:


> *Speaking as a man who plans on dying a virgin:* why are men expected to have a problem with their girlfriends not being virgins before them?


No one is expecting that.



> Guys are *expected* to have frequent sex, so unless guys are expected to be gay, that means women are also expected to have had sex.


Male dogs are expected to have frequent sex, are dog male stereotypes bad? 

Also, guys aren't expected to have frequent sex. Guys are expected to have sex when they want to. If you don't want to, don't do it. If you want to, find a way.



> Is this *actually* a surprise for guys to find out that their girlfriends have had sex before them?


Nope. But if your girlfriend have uncritically derived pleasure from loads of men who are way below your human standards, would you feel special?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Simpson17866 said:


> *Speaking as a man who plans on dying a virgin:* why are men expected to have a problem with their girlfriends not being virgins before them? Guys are *expected* to have frequent sex, so unless guys are expected to be gay, that means women are also expected to have had sex.


Don't start talking logically on this. We know the math doesn't add up, but we need to ignore that. What's important is that when a man finishes slutting around, he should be able to settle down and feel special. With a virginal hottie who is secretly a closet nympo, so he can unlock her insatiable libido with his special magic key. 

:laughing: 



:laughing:


----------



## JayShambles (Aug 9, 2016)

Kyn said:


> Don't start talking logically on this. We know the math doesn't add up, but we need to ignore that. What's important is that when a man finishes slutting around, he should be able to settle down and feel special. With a virginal hottie who is secretly a closet nympo, so he can unlock her insatiable libido with his special magic key.
> 
> :laughing:
> 
> ...


Yeahhhhh, I'm feeling this ^^


----------



## BearRun (Mar 3, 2017)

Amine said:


> I love how people think that not being promiscuous now must mean they have "issues with trusting people". Maybe you are actually sane and you _have_ diligently guarded your nether-regions because, you know, you shouldn't trust people who are untrustable. That might be a lot of people. Never mind the physical dangers of promiscuity. Your heart is an incredibly dangerous thing to trust someone with. Love _requires_ trust--a lot of it. So the fact that you don't just willy-nilly trust people is actually to your credit, because they _will_ hurt you. Maybe your gut knows more than your brain.
> 
> If you've come this far, anyway, you might as well accept it's who you are and run with it.


Wait for marriage? I don't know that I'll ever want to marry. I could be looking at another 60 years without sex if it's only in marriage. If the trust issues were only in romantic relationships, you might be right, but you're not. For the record, promiscuity means many sexual partners or indiscriminate selection of sexual partners. People can be sexually active outside of marriage and not promiscuous and be promiscuous but save it for marriage. A Christian I went to school with married some loser straight out of high school and I'm pretty sure she just didn't want to be judged for wanting sex. Her selection process looked promiscuous to me. They're already getting a divorce.


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

JayShambles said:


> Unfortunately there will always be men who slut shame. Probably not the best advice to give a woman


What about: "people, have all the consensual sex you want, and never mind the judgment some random stranger might spit on you?"
The best advice would be for people to stop dictating what other people should do with their genitals. Since nosy people are bound to keep judging, second best advice would be to ignore them.


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

Amine said:


> I don't have that much sexual experience but I wish I had less. It's difficult to talk about alternate worlds because they just weren't what happened, but if I had it to do over again I wouldn't have tried to lose my virginity and would have looked for someone who did the same and waited until marriage. There are people out there who do value this, and it is my contention that their values are the correct ones.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So, now someone is saying she's a virgin because she has trust issues, and you say _no it's not true_.
Please go ahead deciding how people (oh wait, no, specifically women) should "diligently guard their nether-regions" and reading stranger's minds. That's fascinating.


----------



## Amine (Feb 23, 2014)

BearRun said:


> Wait for marriage? I don't know that I'll ever want to marry. I could be looking at another 60 years without sex if it's only in marriage. If the trust issues were only in romantic relationships, you might be right, but you're not. For the record, promiscuity means many sexual partners or indiscriminate selection of sexual partners. People can be sexually active outside of marriage and not promiscuous and be promiscuous but save it for marriage. A Christian I went to school with married some loser straight out of high school and I'm pretty sure she just didn't want to be judged for wanting sex. Her selection process looked promiscuous to me. They're already getting a divorce.


It's like a credit score. Any relationship is an inherently risky thing. Our past decisions are good predictors of what the future will be like. Some people may not have perfect credit scores but still be okay, as with people who tend to have sex in committed relationships but before marriage. I still think marriage is the gold standard, but that doesn't mean it is a perfect predictor either. People can get married whenever they want, at any point of having known someone. One has to look at more than just that.



Cast said:


> So, now someone is saying she's a virgin because she has trust issues, and you say _no it's not true_.
> Please go ahead deciding how people (oh wait, no, specifically women) should "diligently guard their nether-regions" and reading stranger's minds. That's fascinating.


I don't know much about her and I indicated as much when I repeatedly said "maybe" about her situation, demonstrating that I was just throwing ideas out there that might be worth considering since we're having this discussion. And I never said this applies specifically to women; in fact I didn't look at her symbol on the side and thought I was talking to a guy until you pointed it out.


----------



## JayShambles (Aug 9, 2016)

CoyoteCalled said:


> It's never occurred to me to take a person's past sexual experiences into consideration (unless there are other complicating and related factors). Why should it matter? That baffles me.
> 
> Then again, people who think they're culling others for sexual experiences are essentially weeding themselves out, aren't they?


I don't think it should matter as the people who mind about past sexual experiences mostly cull out others in preparation to weed themselves from people who don't appear to be sexually compatible with themselves.


----------



## JayShambles (Aug 9, 2016)

Cast said:


> What about: "people, have all the consensual sex you want, and never mind the judgment some random stranger might spit on you?"
> The best advice would be for people to stop dictating what other people should do with their genitals. Since nosy people are bound to keep judging, second best advice would be to ignore them.


Everyone is capable of doing what they like and living the sexual experiences they desire. Nobody is stopping them.

It's just unfortunate that the random stranger maybe the next person you fall in love with. Sure, it's not worth it to be with somebody who judges you right? But it sure narrows down the chances of being fallen in love with.

To each their own.. Do what you like and just understand reality and its consequences.. That's all?


----------



## CoyoteCalled (Mar 9, 2017)

A win-win situation, aside from perpetuating stigma, I'd say.


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

Amine said:


> I don't know much about her and I indicated as much when I repeatedly said "maybe" about her situation, demonstrating that I was just throwing ideas out there that might be worth considering since we're having this discussion. And I never said this applies specifically to women; in fact I didn't look at her symbol on the side and thought I was talking to a guy until you pointed it out.


I guess this:


> If there is a clever and fit young girl who diligently guards her nether-regions even through years of temptation and peer pressure, you can more reasonably expect to have a lasting marriage and stable, successful life with her


didn't aplly specifically to women then...?

This:


> I love how people think that not being promiscuous now must mean they have "issues with trusting people".


also sounds pretty clear-cut.

Anyway.
I was interested in the research on number of sexual partners and divorce rate - I'm not sure who specifically was citing the research. I looked it up and found a couple of articles that do show women with more sexual partners are more likely to initiate divorce or get divorced _in the first five years_. That's pretty different than having higher divorce rates alltogether. Also, waiting until marriage might stem from a religious view - the same religious view that would make you stay in an unhappy marriage, instead of divorcing.
Another problem is that the research only looked at how many sexual partners _women_ had, and it didn't look at how many sexual partners their husband had too. One would think this should be examined too.
So the matter is much more foggy and less clear-cut than I thought initially.


----------



## BearRun (Mar 3, 2017)

Amine said:


> It's like a credit score. Any relationship is an inherently risky thing. Our past decisions are good predictors of what the future will be like. Some people may not have perfect credit scores but still be okay, as with people who tend to have sex in committed relationships but before marriage. I still think marriage is the gold standard, but that doesn't mean it is a perfect predictor either. People can get married whenever they want, at any point of having known someone. One has to look at more than just that.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know much about her and I indicated as much when I repeatedly said "maybe" about her situation, demonstrating that I was just throwing ideas out there that might be worth considering since we're having this discussion. And I never said this applies specifically to women; in fact I didn't look at her symbol on the side and thought I was talking to a guy until you pointed it out.



In that case, I should let guys think I've had dozens of partners to cull the ones that value me based on my "credit score". I don't want a guy like that.


----------



## ThisNameWorks (Mar 11, 2017)

I think we should all retreat to our private chambers have ourselves a good wank, some consensual, or a dp'ing, or lack there of (whatever it is you've managed to put your mind to during the busy hours) then we can return and admit that we were asking for it when we chose to open this thread.

Quite frankly I don't approve of anything the boy says. Humans and life itself are much too complex to be summarized by a few posts. This is also true regarding the topic of sex, which everything said here falls under.

SEX everybody has something to say.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Amine said:


> I don't have that much sexual experience but I wish I had less. It's difficult to talk about alternate worlds because they just weren't what happened, but if I had it to do over again I wouldn't have tried to lose my virginity and would have looked for someone who did the same and waited until marriage. There are people out there who do value this, and it is my contention that their values are the correct ones.


Would you be a better person now if you was still a virgin? Would you make a better husband and father? 

Having been in the position of a 'trophy'. I assure you that a trophy has no real sense of self-worth. It means nothing and that realisation eventually catches up with you. I want to be valued for who am, what I've learned from past experiences and my informed and well thought out morals and values. Not because I've never had experience and adopted whatever values society has dictated to me.

I also agree with @BearRun. Having issues trusting (men, in my case) does prevent a lot of promiscuous behaviour. Those issues don't actually go away when you eventually find 'the one', though. They reappear and start destroying the relationship and the people in it. 
Virginity isn't an indicator of good character or good psychological/emotional health. Sometimes it's due to issues, sometimes due to a lack of sex drive, sometimes overly authoritative parents, etc.


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

JayShambles said:


> Everyone is capable of doing what they like and living the sexual experiences they desire. Nobody is stopping them.
> 
> It's just unfortunate that the random stranger maybe the next person you fall in love with. Sure, it's not worth it to be with somebody who judges you right? But it sure narrows down the chances of being fallen in love with.
> 
> To each their own.. Do what you like and just understand reality and its consequences.. That's all?


I hope I'd fall in love with someone I know a bit more than the random stranger. If, after knowing me, that person still judged me for my sexual experiences and thought I was a slut - than yes, it wouldn't be worth to stay with him. My hymen is not his prerogative, and if he thinks so, we just would have worldviews too different to be compatible.
Hearing such judgment from someone I'm falling for would hurt me, but in the long run, it would probably hurt me more to stay with him. I only have sex with someone I could imagine raising a child with - because contraceptive sometimes fail and I can't think of getting an abortion - and that, for the moment, has been only one man. If that man had mocked me for my lack of sexual experience, it would have been a sign of deep conflict of values. I'd take that as a red flag that we might not be compatible for life. But if the same man commented on the low market value of sluts who do not diligently guard their hymen, or the fact he didn't trust our marriage to last because of my previous sexual choices, it would be a red flag too. I don't want a man with this worldview and attitudes as the father of my children; and if he's not "future family material", I'd better not get too invested in him. Yep, I'm old-fashioned like that.


----------



## Lost_in_Arca (Jan 5, 2017)

The problem is that we can't turn the matter the other way around. 
Would you date a guy who had a threesome and double penetrated someone? If it is somewhat a problem, it should go both ways. If sexual liberty is dangerous - e.g. makes you more prone to get STDs - it goes both way. 
If it is a morally bad thing to do, why having a penis automatically saves you from the "shame"?

Come on, people. I'm not playing the white-knight, pro-feminism guy here. It's just logic.


----------



## Amine (Feb 23, 2014)

Cast said:


> I guess this:
> 
> didn't aplly specifically to women then...?


Like at the exclusion of men? Why would it? In fact I was using women as an example because I thought I was talking to a guy who was looking for women.



> This:
> 
> also sounds pretty clear-cut.


It's not, because I've met more than one person who has ever said that, to the point where I think it may be a widespread phenomenon.



> Anyway.
> I was interested in the research on number of sexual partners and divorce rate - I'm not sure who specifically was citing the research. I looked it up and found a couple of articles that do show women with more sexual partners are more likely to initiate divorce or get divorced _in the first five years_. That's pretty different than having higher divorce rates alltogether. Also, waiting until marriage might stem from a religious view - the same religious view that would make you stay in an unhappy marriage, instead of divorcing.
> Another problem is that the research only looked at how many sexual partners _women_ had, and it didn't look at how many sexual partners their husband had too. One would think this should be examined too.
> So the matter is much more foggy and less clear-cut than I thought initially.


Research is fine (if it is good and not deceptive, which it often can be) but it is also a matter of common sense. If you meet someone who has a track record of having their shit together emotionally, being trustworthy, and not being promiscuous, and you marry them on the agreement of a lifetime commitment, that's what you're likely to get. If you marry the girl or guy who slept with a whole bunch of people and has an unstable character, that you can expect more risk.



BearRun said:


> In that case, I should let guys think I've had dozens of partners to cull the ones that value me based on my "credit score". I don't want a guy like that.


I'm saying that having dozens of partners decreases your "credit score" of the chances of having a long-lasting and faithful relationship with them. Guys ultimately like choosy girls the best anyway.



Kyn said:


> Would you be a better person now if you was still a virgin? Would you make a better husband and father?


Weirdly worded question but I think (?) I see what you mean. Basically I wouldn't be me if I were still a virgin, because I would have made different decisions in the past which weren't in my character to do. All I can say is that with my experience now, I believe that would have been the right way to play it and it would have gotten me the best outcome.



> Having been in the position of a 'trophy'. I assure you that a trophy has no real sense of self-worth. It means nothing and that realisation eventually catches up with you. I want to be valued for who am, what I've learned from past experiences and my informed and well thought out morals and values. Not because I've never had experience and adopted whatever values society has dictated to me.


Well, that's good because I'm not advocating being a trophy. I'm advocating responsibility, discretion, and establishing a trustworthy and dependable persona. These values aren't arbitrary, and they are increasingly rare in society, to the point now where adopting them is actually the counter-cultural thing to do. Society dictates that you should be sexually "liberated", if you could call it that. Staying a virgin is the "weird" route.



> I also agree with @BearRun. Having issues trusting (men, in my case) does prevent a lot of promiscuous behaviour. Those issues don't actually go away when you eventually find 'the one', though. They reappear and start destroying the relationship and the people in it.
> Virginity isn't an indicator of good character or good psychological/emotional health. Sometimes it's due to issues, sometimes due to a lack of sex drive, sometimes overly authoritative parents, etc.


Obviously virginity _by itself_ isn't necessarily an indicator of good character etc, but obviously (again) that's only a significant part of the picture. 

I still think that "trust issues" is generally speaking (as in, maybe you're an exception to what I'm about to say and I get that) a wrong-headed idea that has arisen in a society where people are encouraged to make bad decisions. Look at it in that light for a moment and realize, it actually is something a psychopath would try to use to persuade you. "You won't do what I want? You won't make this risky decision? What, do you have trust issues or something?" 

Trust is by its nature _hard to establish_. It has to be, otherwise it doesn't mean anything and it isn't even present. Just because a person may have high expectations for dependability in others, which is rare, doesn't mean they have "trust issues".

Human relationships are extremely difficult and fragile things to keep together and functioning. A haphazard attitude towards them will come back to bite anyone who holds it. This regularly happens, as we know. If a person doesn't want to keep getting bitten, they can make sure that whoever they associate with meets high standards of dependability, coherent thought, discipline as opposed to indulgence, etc.


----------



## BearRun (Mar 3, 2017)

Amine said:


> I'm saying that having dozens of partners decreases your "credit score" of the chances of having a long-lasting and faithful relationship with them. *Guys ultimately like choosy girls the best* anyway.


Some guys. I'd rather hold out for guys who don't value women based on the number of partners they have or haven't had. I don't need as many men as possible to find me attractive. More importantly than what men want in me as a partner is the kind of man I want as a partner. I want the kind of man who's interest in me isn't tied to my "credit score".


----------



## Amine (Feb 23, 2014)

BearRun said:


> Some guys. I'd rather hold out for guys who don't value women based on the number of partners they have or haven't had. I don't need as many men as possible to find me attractive. More importantly than what men want in me as a partner is the kind of man I want as a partner. I want the kind of man who's interest in me isn't tied to my "credit score".


If they don't value how many partners a woman has had or not had, are they very smart? 

From your own perspective, lets say you meet some guy who has been with 100 women. _100 women!_ Even anything over 10 would be well above average. He takes up an interest in you. Aside from all stereotypical fantasies about getting to be "the one who was able to conquer his heart", who is this guy really, how realistic should your expectations be of him? I mean, you say you have trust issues..

At a certain point a person has to take an _empirical_ look at their life and ask themselves, "who am I, apart from what I think?" The answer lies in what that person _does_. So for me, if you go back and find my first post in this topic, I said I "de facto" wouldn't be with anyone who has been DP'd. If I look at DP on a rational (but shallow) level, I could think "why would it matter to me if anyone had sex in both holes at the same time? How does it even affect me?" But then I take an experience-based look at myself and the other person. First, I notice that I've never done anything remotely like that. Then, I think about who a person would have to be, what their priorities would have to be, and what their life might look like, to have sought and found DP.

The thing about young people is they have less experience, so they tend to think _anyone_, including themselves, is capable of _anything_. As you get older you realize there is less of a distinction between what a person does and what they _could do_. If it seemed like you could do it, and you didn't, could you really do it? Similarly, if it is in someone to do something, opportunities tend to present themselves.

In other words, the things people do say things about them, whether you or they like it or not. Any guy who has been with 100 girls has repeatedly stated his view of and habits toward sexual relationships, even if he lies to himself about it, even if he wakes up one morning and tells himself he is going to change. If you don't take that into account, your results will depend on what you're looking for. If you want a friend with benefits, you may be in luck. If you want a husband who will stay faithful to you and not divorce you at some point, your chances are low.

Is dependability not a valid reason to love and respect someone? I think it is. This "credit score" analogy is good but it only goes so far, and if you take it too literally it sounds bad, so don't. But the fact of the matter is, what you are derisively calling a "credit score" actually consists of great qualities which constitute at least a significant portion of a reason to love someone.


----------



## BearRun (Mar 3, 2017)

Amine said:


> If they don't value how many partners a woman has had or not had, are they very smart?
> 
> From your own perspective, lets say you meet some guy who has been with 100 women. _100 women!_ Even anything over 10 would be well above average. He takes up an interest in you. Aside from all stereotypical fantasies about getting to be "the one who was able to conquer his heart", who is this guy really, how realistic should your expectations be of him? I mean, you say you have trust issues..
> 
> ...


If those 100 women were in the past, he may have changed a lot since then. His value doesn't change. 

There's no rule that men have to be interested in women that they perceive like used cars. But there's no rule that women have to be interested in men that view them like new or used cars.


----------



## OutsideLookingIn391 (Mar 10, 2017)

Hmmm, all this sounds like the classic age-old discussion between men and women. Men more interested in "getting their rocks off" and women seeking a more selective "love of my life" connection.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

meltwater said:


> I agree with @Cast. We need to stop slut-shaming. Let women have as much sex as they like, whatever way they like.


How would you really feel touching a woman you know has been touched by over a hundred men before? I am not a paragon of morality, but this does bother me, and a lot. I want to feel special and new. Is that selfish? Perhaps. But it's how I feel and I'm not going to apologise for it. Women never respect men who grovel, capitulate and don't stick to their guns.

Also, slut-shaming is actually quite logical from an evolutionary standpoint. Women who have a lot of sexual partners are statistically less likely to reproduce and invest their time/resources in any offspring, because their mindset is to have as many partners as possible. As @Amine has said, it is our actions that are indicative of our values, not the other way around. 

If you genuinely want to get married, don't turn your nose up at the pious church girl, tortured artist or aloof nerdette, just because they are less flashy than the sorority girls. Never become a white knight for whores. They don't deserve your attentions.

Take the red pill. Google _r_-_K_ selection theory.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

OutsideLookingIn391 said:


> Hmmm, all this sounds like the classic age-old discussion between men and women. Men more interested in "getting their rocks off" and women seeking a more selective "love of my life" connection.


This is actually not true. Some women are not very selective at all (see any thread in S&R for evidence) and vice versa for men. There are two distinct reproductive strategies humans take:

_r_-strategy or the "abundance mindset" (large number of partners, low investment in offspring)
_K_-strategy or the "scarcity mindset" (low number of partners, high investment in offspring)

There is no default state and people can flip depending on environmental circumstances. However, most of us have a clear preference for one strategy over the other. Feminists seem to want a society which is overwhelmingly _r_, much like Nigeria or Somalia.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

Are you literally Holden from Chasing Amy?


----------



## Ntwadumela (Mar 19, 2017)

Rock Of Ages said:


> This is actually not true. Some women are not very selective at all (see any thread in S&R for evidence) and vice versa for men. There are two distinct reproductive strategies humans take:
> 
> _r_-strategy or the "abundance mindset" (large number of partners, low investment in offspring)
> _K_-strategy or the "scarcity mindset" (low number of partners, high investment in offspring)
> ...


r-K selection has to do with species, not individual humans. All humans have a K selection strategy because it takes 9 months of carrying a child an nearly two decades of raising them to produce an adult human not to mention the fact that most pregnancies are single births. r-K selection is the difference between rabbits and humans, not between sluts and Conservative Christians. Not to mention your entire argument is even further invalidated by the fact that loose women are almost always using protection in order to avoid actually getting pregnant so even those who've slept with 100 men often have not a single kid whereas plenty of women who have only ever slept with one man have many kids (this was in fact the norm for much of History after all). It's the very fact that contraceptives have liberated women from the fear of childbirth that has allowed them to have so many more sexual partners which again flies in the face of your whole r-K selection theory argument. Women who sleep around do it because they enjoy sex, there's nothing more complicated going on than that.


----------



## baitedcrow (Dec 22, 2015)

Rock Of Ages said:


> How would you really feel touching a woman you know has been touched by over a hundred men before? I am not a paragon of morality, but this does bother me, and a lot. I want to feel special and new. Is that selfish? Perhaps. But it's how I feel and I'm not going to apologise for it.
> 
> Also, slut-shaming is actually quite logical from an evolutionary standpoint. Women who have a lot of sexual partners are statistically less likely to reproduce and invest their time/resources in any offspring, because they have what I call an "abundance mindset", which is to have as many partners as possible but not invest energy in any one of them.
> 
> Google r/K selection theory.


Jesus. r/K selection theory is about quantity of offspring vs. investment of resources in particular offspring. All it really states is that the more offspring a species produces, the less investment the parent organisms make per infant. The fewer offspring they produce, the more likely they are to invest highly in the few by having long gestation periods and by engaging in extended parental care.

It has nothing directly to do with quantity of _partners_. Also, a) it's a trait that applies to species, less so to individual organisms, b) few species are considered primarily one or the other, and c) each strategy has its own benefits depending upon the ecological niche the species fills.

FYI, some species that are primarily K selected (ie built to invest a lot in few offspring) do have consistently promiscuous mating patterns - female humpback whales, for instance, mate promiscuously both between and within single breeding seasons and nonetheless invest large amounts of time and energy into raising few offspring.

The trend of misusing insights of evolutionary biology to defend ideological, cultural biases really needs to drown. (Like those baby humpbacks would if their promiscuous mothers didn't invest in them so highly.)


----------



## OutsideLookingIn391 (Mar 10, 2017)

Rock Of Ages said:


> This is actually not true. Some women are not very selective at all (see any thread in S&R for evidence) and vice versa for men. There are two distinct reproductive strategies humans take:
> 
> _r_-strategy or the "abundance mindset" (large number of partners, low investment in offspring)
> _K_-strategy or the "scarcity mindset" (low number of partners, high investment in offspring)
> ...


Sport, I never declared a truth. I stated an observation. Let the R and the K fall where they may....


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

baitedcrow said:


> Jesus. r/K selection theory is about quantity of offspring vs. investment of resources in particular offspring. All it really states is that the more offspring a species produces, the less investment the parent organisms make per infant. The fewer offspring they produce, the more likely they are to invest highly in the few by having long gestation periods and by engaging in extended parental care.
> 
> It has nothing directly to do with quantity of _partners_. Also, a) it's a trait that applies to species, less so to individual organisms,


While I agree the theory has nothing _directly_ to do with the quantity of partners, I believe that this is a useful proxy for somebody's mentality now that contraceptive use is widespread. As there are measurable group differences in behaviour/outcome within a species, I see no reason why some principles from the theory cannot be applied.



baitedcrow said:


> b) few species are considered primarily one or the other, and c) each strategy has its own benefits depending upon the ecological niche the species fills.


In summary, you seem primarily uncomfortable with my applying these insights to group differences in inter-species behaviour. I am not talking about differences on an individual level.



baitedcrow said:


> The trend of misusing insights of evolutionary biology to defend ideological, cultural biases really needs to drown. (Like those baby humpbacks would if their promiscuous mothers didn't invest in them so highly.)


This is a strawman. 

You know, it sounds like we actually agree on a lot more than you are trying to make out.


----------



## Ntwadumela (Mar 19, 2017)

Rock Of Ages said:


> There are measurable group differences within a species, as well as between them. While I agree the theory has nothing _directly_ to do with the quantity of partners, I believe that this is a useful proxy for somebody's mentality now that contraceptive use is widespread.


No, it's really quite different. Broadly speaking there are two types of things that can bring us happiness. There are the short bursts of happiness we can get from things like food, sex, drugs, gambling etc and there are the long lasting sense of fulfillment we can get from things like raising a family, perusing a hobby, investing ourselves into a cause we believe in etc. The sort of individual who has a lot of sexual partners values the former sources of happiness whereas the individual who has a few sexual partners (and only ever one at a time) values the later sources of happiness. Again, it's nothing complicated and you don't have to invoke a bogus Evolutionary Biology explanation because it's all about how they go about perusing happiness. Personally I think the later sort of things are far more fulfilling than the former, but of course the former can be obtained more easily and for a short time are much more intense and therefore many people fall for them and ignore the true sources of happiness in life which take a lot more time and effort to get right but in the end pay that effort back in spades.


----------



## baitedcrow (Dec 22, 2015)

Rock Of Ages said:


> Hmm, it sounds like we actually agree a lot more than you are trying to make out.


We don't. It's probably a reading comprehension issue. I only assume that because if you think this...



> While I agree the theory has nothing _directly_ to do with the quantity of partners, I believe that this is a useful proxy for somebody's mentality now that contraceptive use is widespread.


...and this...



> > b) few species are considered primarily one or the other, and c) each strategy has its own benefits depending upon the ecological niche the species fills.
> 
> 
> ....Which is also exactly what I have said.



...you don't seem to have understood what r/K is about and probably need to reread whatever you've read about it. I suggest actual textbooks.

FYI again, when scientists observe that most species are not r _or_ K it's not because most of them flip between one or the other depending, though some probably do, but because the dichotomy proves false and most have evolved to use a mixed strategy.

Humans are altogether and across the board K selected, because we mostly have one infant at a time and invest years of time into bringing it up (and must do in order to bring it up). Ocean Sunfish are very r selected, because they mostly lay a shitload of eggs and then just leave them, relying on numbers alone to ensure survival of the species. Something like a dog is in reality in between, in that they have multiple offspring at once but also invest in their offspring through parental care.

Also, let's be clear, dropping the term "straw man" does not alone make a thing a straw man or fool anyone paying attention into thinking it is. You literally, exactly just mischaracterized r/K selection to try and make a point that it was ill-suited to support, a point which just so happens to lie in agreement with centuries of ideological and cultural mores and which in this thread has essentially constituted a proposed more in and of itself. That's flesh and blood silliness. Now, if you were _really_ trying to use it as a metaphor all along, well, okay I guess (even if it's not a very good one) but you ought to have been clearer about it instead of throwing the term about without a good explanation. Wouldn't want to risk people thinking it was an actual, valid interpretation of r/K selection theory as it's used by biologists, would you have?


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

Let's get back on topic please. 



baitedcrow said:


> We don't. It's probably a reading comprehension issue. I only assume that because if you think this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Firstly, congratulations on derailing the thread, probably for a few pages. Your objective here is clearly to go off on a tangent you have competence in to try and discredit me in general. I notice that everyone else has gone rather quiet.

It is absolutely a straw man argument to compare my posts' content to someone arguing that baby humpback whales are lustful because of their "promiscuous mothers"! What an obnoxious personification. If it has taken you this long to figure out that I am applying the theory to the sociological issue (in other words, yes, it is a metaphor) which the entire thread is about, then your opinion of its effectiveness is not important enough for us to consider.

Now if we could please get back to business?


----------



## baitedcrow (Dec 22, 2015)

Rock Of Ages said:


> It is absolutely a straw man argument to compare my posts to someone arguing that baby humpback whales are lustful because of their "promiscuous mothers"! .


Ladies and gents, this is what an actual straw man looks like. But let's do get back on topic.


----------



## OutsideLookingIn391 (Mar 10, 2017)

Yawn.....


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

baitedcrow said:


> Ladies and gents, this is what an actual straw man looks like. But let's do get back on topic.


Are you just looking to start a fight? It only took me a second to Google this.

"Debaters invoke a straw man when they put forth an argument—usually something extreme or easy to argue against—that they know their opponent doesn't support."

Which is _exactly_ what you did in your post. So you don't get to take the moral high ground here. Look up a list of logical fallacies while you are at it.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

yeah i would, cmon... u still believe in virgins?


----------



## JayShambles (Aug 9, 2016)

VoodooDolls said:


> yeah i would, cmon... u still believe in virgins?


Nope, but I believe in women who haven't been DP'd


----------



## OutsideLookingIn391 (Mar 10, 2017)

well, what about orals.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

baitedcrow said:


> Jesus. r/K selection theory is about quantity of offspring vs. investment of resources in particular offspring. All it really states is that the more offspring a species produces, the less investment the parent organisms make per infant. The fewer offspring they produce, the more likely they are to invest highly in the few by having long gestation periods and by engaging in extended parental care.
> 
> It has nothing directly to do with quantity of _partners_. Also, a) it's a trait that applies to species, less so to individual organisms, b) few species are considered primarily one or the other, and c) each strategy has its own benefits depending upon the ecological niche the species fills.
> 
> ...


Nah hang on though. It does make sense to talk about r/K in the context of human promiscuity. Admittedly, mostly male promiscuity... which is not what his post or this thread are about. But still. It's pointless to say "it applies to species, less so to individual organisms." Yeah, but only because in general individual organisms do not possess the capacity to make individual strategies. Humans do, so the point is moot. Men are absolutely faced with that dilemma:

K: have offspring with one woman (limiting his reproductive rate to the production rate of her womb). Focus his energy on investment in those children. Priority is quality over quantity.
r: have offspring with many women (limited only by how many women he can impregnate). Focus his energy on finding more women to impregnate. Priority is on quantity over quality.

Women are not faced with this dilemma because they are always limited by their womb. There is no strategy available to women which resembles r-selection.

Since women are pigeonholed into K-selection, they obviously want help investing in their children. So they have a vested interest in pressuring men into K-selection as well, to maximize his investment in her children (rather than spending his energy pursuing other women or investing in any children he has with other women). That makes it difficult for men to hybridize between r and K which they presumably otherwise would. So men are pushed towards either extreme.

If we want to get very biological though, women are not entirely hostile to r-selection men. Any sons she has via an r-selection male are more likely to become successful r-selection men themselves (and thus have more offspring and be more valuable to her genetic legacy). So she has incentive to be impregnated by an r-strategist and then find a K-strategist to invest in the child (and probably have subsequent children, ideally daughters, with him as well).

That last bit is of course very threatening to K-strategist men because the mother of their children will then be splitting her energy investing in his children and in her children that aren't his. Which makes K-strategist men inherently hostile to promiscuous women, ie women who mate with r-strategist men. So there you have it.


----------



## baitedcrow (Dec 22, 2015)

Dante Scioli said:


> Nah hang on though. It does make sense to talk about r/K in the context of human promiscuity. Admittedly, mostly male promiscuity... which is not what his post or this thread are about. But still. It's pointless to say "it applies to species, less so to individual organisms." Yeah, but only because in general individual organisms do not possess the capacity to make individual strategies. Humans do, so the point is moot. Men are absolutely faced with that dilemma:
> 
> K: have offspring with one woman (limiting his reproductive rate to the production rate of her womb). Focus his energy on investment in those children. Priority is quality over quantity.
> r: have offspring with many women (limited only by how many women he can impregnate). Focus his energy on finding more women to impregnate. Priority is on quantity over quality.
> ...


No, dude. I get what you're saying (although the correctness of it is debatable; the extent to which women actually need paternal investment to raise children to adulthood varies a lot by society (their economic status, whether they can expect other community support...), and to the extent that they do need paternal investment specifically to raise children successfully, it is also in mens' interests to invest significantly in at least some of their offspring, lest all of the wild oats they sow die from neglect - that would limit the viability of "r strategy" even for men in the overwhelming majority of cases), but it's still an inappropriate use of r/K selection theory properly understood. 

It also manages to acknowledge humans' ability to consciously strategize without integrating the relevance of stuff like birth control and paternity tests to modern reproductive strategy, if you're trying to use it to do more than just explain why men may have historically disliked the idea of marrying promiscuous women. (It's not clear to me that you are, though.) Still, to the extent that humans' ability to strategize is important to your thoughts, the idea of "innateness" as a valid factor necessarily is somewhat reduced, though you mention it anyway.

(Regardless, male acceptance of non-virgin brides has increased so dramatically over the course of just the last 100 years or so, and ideas about what "promiscuity" even is have shifted so much, and the ability of a man to properly tell what sort of sex acts a woman has done previously is so dependent on her telling the truth to begin with (which, lol if it's something her future depends on), that I don't think empirical evidence is really in favor of men being innately anti-female-promiscuity in a really meaningful way. It may be one factor, but factors of religion, economics and inheritance are also significant.)

The theory applies to species. You cannot be socially "pressured toward" a certain kind of "selection" in this context, the selection going on is not active selection of this or that by an individual, it's adaptive selection of certain biological features and parental instincts within a given species. 

You can use it as an analogy if you like, but it's only that and should be flagged as such. Per the actual theory, humans are K-selected as a species.


----------



## OutsideLookingIn391 (Mar 10, 2017)

Thread"s been hijacked into a totally different discussion. I'm out...


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

baitedcrow said:


> and to the extent that they do need paternal investment specifically to raise children successfully, it is also in mens' interests to invest significantly in at least some of their offspring, lest all of the wild oats they sow die from neglect - that would limit the viability of "r strategy" even for men.


Well, no, that's the essence of r-strategy. Total spray & pray. Have as many offspring as possible and hope that at least some of them make it to adulthood, almost assuredly via at least partial investment by another male, which the r-strategist trusts will be secured by the child's mother (which is a big incentive for him to focus his efforts on young and attractive women).



baitedcrow said:


> it's still an inappropriate use of r/K selection theory properly understood.
> 
> The theory applies to species. You cannot be socially "pressured toward" a certain kind of "selection" in this context, the selection going on is not active selection of this or that by an individual, it's adaptive selection of certain biological features and parental instincts within a given species.
> 
> You can use it as an analogy if you like, but it's only that and should be flagged as such.


Okay, fine. You're technically correct. If we want to be strict about it, we have to apply the term to the species as a whole; it can't be applied to certain sections of the species but only categorically as an inherent quality of the species itself. That's because it has much to do with the physical characteristics of a species such as gestation time, number of offspring per pregnancy, % of lifespan spent in childhood, etc, and those characteristics are ostensibly constant from individual to individual within a species.

But that's nitpicking. The core concept of quality vs quantity and its relation to parental investment, which is really what r/K is about, is perfectly applicable to this topic. He wasn't so wrong as to merit the harshness of your reply is what I'm saying.


----------



## baitedcrow (Dec 22, 2015)

> Thread"s been hijacked into a totally different discussion. I'm out...


I mean true, though I don't think it was anyone's intent. If someone wants to split threads, cool, I might participate later or I might not, depends on how much time I have and whether I think discussion is taking place in good faith and not becoming repetitive/nonsensical.


----------



## baitedcrow (Dec 22, 2015)

Dante Scioli said:


> Well, no, that's the essence of r-strategy. Total spray & pray. Have as many offspring as possible and hope that at least some of them make it to adulthood, almost assuredly via at least partial investment by another male, which the r-strategist trusts will be secured by the child's mother (which is a big incentive for him to focus his efforts on young and attractive women).


"Spray and pray" only tends to work well if the species produces infants that don't _require_ high levels of parental investment, as humans do. 

Tl;dr you can speculate as you like about cuckolding, but there isn't actually a lot of hard evidence for its ever having been a super successful strategy in humans, so to claim that it obviously must have been is a stretch. It's possible that it was, but that relies on the inability of other men to tell if they're investing in a baby that isn't theirs. If there is no sure way for them to tell, the extent to which heuristics like "marry virgins" would actually have been effective enough to create an innate disposition toward avoiding "promiscuous" women (itself a changeable perception) could then be in question. 

And that's the problem with just-so stories, nearly always. They are clear, neat, seem to make sense, and either haven't really been or cannot be tested (unless you invent a time machine).



> The core concept of quality vs quantity and its relation to parental investment, which is really what r/K is about, is perfectly applicable to this topic. He wasn't so wrong as to merit the harshness of your reply is what I'm saying.


The core concept is quantity of offspring vs. level of parental investment. It was straightforwardly misrepresented as being about quantity of sexual partners vs. quality of parental investment, mainly in women, two things which do not necessarily have a whit to do with one another.

My reply wasn't harsh, it was factual.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

baitedcrow said:


> My reply wasn't harsh, it was factual.


Your post started with "Jesus" and ended with "The trend of misusing insights of evolutionary biology to defend ideological, cultural biases really needs to drown."

Also saying "tl;dr" and continuing to argue is basically just plugging your ears and saying "I'm not listening!" I didn't even write that much. Evidently you made it as far as "spray and pray," so you apparently only missed one sentence in that paragraph.


----------



## baitedcrow (Dec 22, 2015)

Dante Scioli said:


> Your post started with "Jesus" and ended with "The trend of misusing insights of evolutionary biology to defend ideological, cultural biases really needs to drown."
> 
> Also saying "tl;dr" and continuing to argue is basically just plugging your ears and saying "I'm not listening!" I didn't even write that much. Evidently you made it as far as "spray and pray," so you apparently only missed one sentence in that paragraph.


"tl;dr" is sometimes used to summarize a loooong post in a few sentences, and that's how I meant to use it here (except that I did not and probably will not actually type up the loooong post I was summarizing - it just exists in my brain). I did not mean to imply that I had only read one sentence of _your_ post, though I get how it could be read that way so my bad. I'm only giving you a summary of my thoughts on this because going into all of the detail would be an actual essay that I seriously can't field atm.

As for the rest of it, I guess our sensitivity levels just vary.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

baitedcrow said:


> "tl;dr" is sometimes used to summarize a loooong post in a few sentences, and that's how I meant to use it here (except that I did not and probably will not actually type up the loooong post I was summarizing - it just exists in my brain). I did not mean to imply that I had only read one sentence of _your_ post, though I get how it could be read that way so my bad. I'm only giving you a summary of my thoughts on this because going into all of the detail would be an actual essay that I seriously can't field atm.
> 
> As for the rest of it, I guess our sensitivity levels just vary.


I just don't think using r/K as an analogy for human promiscuity is so off-base that it deserves to drown. Lol. Yeah you're right that he was clumsy in his attempt to relate it to female promiscuity but I'm inclined to think he just didn't express himself clearly. I think I made a good case for the idea in my first reply.


----------



## baitedcrow (Dec 22, 2015)

Dante Scioli said:


> I just don't think using r/K as an analogy for human promiscuity is so off-base that it deserves to drown. Lol. Yeah you're right that he was clumsy in his attempt to relate it to female promiscuity but I'm inclined to think he just didn't express himself clearly. I think I made a good case for the idea in my first reply.


Yeah, I think it _could_ be crafted into an understandable analogy, with varying levels of suitability. I think you're right that as an analogy it makes more sense in relation to male human reproductive strategy than female. I (and others apparently) didn't find it initially clear that it was an analogy at all, since the original gist was more or less "it's evolution! Google r/K," and I absolutely think that that's an important thing to have addressed.

I do tend to hit my limit of charitable interpretation quickly when it comes to arguments that try to use odd interpretations of or comparisons to "evolution" to justify personal preferences or social policy, but that's mainly because I have seen it done in bad faith and/or without sufficient background knowledge or supporting hard data way too frequently.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

baitedcrow said:


> I (and others apparently) didn't find it initially clear that it was an analogy at all, since the original gist was more or less "it's evolution! Google r/K," and I absolutely think that that's an important thing to have addressed.


I do think it's interesting to speculate about what effects this cultural phenomenon could have on future cultural evolution.

This is just a theory I'm trying on for size, but I wonder if birth control and, to a lesser extent, Tinder have caused an upheaval in male strategy. Where before only the most successful r-strategist men would succeed with that strategy, pushing even second-tier r-strategists into adopting K-strategy, now even third-tier men can feel at least somewhat successful pursuing r-strategy.

Know what I mean? Since r-strategy has the greater potential, I think it's likely that men in general would tend to that direction if they can. Birth control prevents women from getting pregnant, which keeps them available, which increases the number of available women, which can support a greater number of men abandoning K-strategy (investment, commitment) in favor of r-strategy. I expect that's not good for society, to have so many pseudo-"alpha" men running around feeling like they can be successful by avoiding commitment because they are getting laid.


----------



## baitedcrow (Dec 22, 2015)

Dante Scioli said:


> I do think it's interesting to speculate about what effects this cultural phenomenon could have on future cultural evolution.
> 
> This is just a theory I'm trying on for size, but I wonder if birth control and, to a lesser extent, Tinder have caused an upheaval in male strategy. Where before only the most successful r-strategist men would succeed with that strategy, pushing even second-tier r-strategists into adopting K-strategy, now even third-tier men can feel at least somewhat successful pursuing r-strategy.
> 
> Know what I mean? Since r-strategy has the greater potential, I think it's likely that men in general would tend to that direction if they can. Birth control prevents women from getting pregnant, which keeps them available, which increases the number of available women, which can support a greater number of men abandoning K-strategy (investment, commitment) in favor of r-strategy. I expect that's not good for society, to have so many pseudo-"alpha" men running around feeling like they can be successful by avoiding commitment because they are getting laid.


I know what you mean, but I don't immediately buy it, mainly because various factors like the high investment requirements of human children, the fact that most primitive hunter-gatherers are thought to have lived in small bands that may not have seen a lot of travelling salesmen and the fact that for a large period of our evolutionary history we likely didn't even properly understand how sex and pregnancy were related means that I'm not sure whether "r-strategy" would _actually_ have had much greater potential for most men in harsh conditions, let alone now with birth control in play. (The author David Buller more fully critiques the assumption that mass cuckolding would have necessarily been a successful reproductive strategy for primitive proto-bros in his book "Adapting Minds", IIRC, if you want more detail)

I mean, we're talking about reproductive strategies, not sex-getting strategies. Most women aren't having babies with the guys they hook up with on Tinder, so to call NSA sex in the era of birth control a good _reproductive_ strategy for men is spurious.

And to the extent that birth control and apps like Tinder have caused an upheaval in male "strategy", they've also caused something of an upheaval in female strategy, at least sexually. Consequence-free sex is all-around easier to manage now, if that's what you're into, no matter your gender. It takes two to tango. (Men still like to tango a little more, apparently, but they don't have social conditioning working against them so much and importantly, their orgasm button is a lot easier to hit, too - a purely speculative explanation referencing reproductive instincts and adaptations can be easily shaved off with Occam's razor.)

Female strategy is also changing maritally and reproductively, with formal commitment and childbirth being delayed. Whether male willingness to "commit" even matters that much reproductively depends largely on the structure of society / the prevailing culture to begin with, and with economic equality becoming a thing it certainly matters less to women now on a practical level than it used to. Of course I think the way our sexual roles are shifting will have social repercussions, but I'm not particularly concerned about what they will be.

If you want to see some speculation on how things may develop from here that goes in a more optimistic direction than I think you're thinking in, you might check out this book:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005UDIATA/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

It's been a while since I've read it, though, so I won't vouch for it entirely or in detail.


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

Amine said:


> Research is fine (if it is good and not deceptive, which it often can be) but it is also a matter of common sense. If you meet someone who has a track record of having their shit together emotionally, being trustworthy, and not being promiscuous, and you marry them on the agreement of a lifetime commitment, that's what you're likely to get. If you marry the girl or guy who slept with a whole bunch of people and has an unstable character, that you can expect more risk.
> 
> I'm saying that having dozens of partners decreases your "credit score" of the chances of having a long-lasting and faithful relationship with them. Guys ultimately like choosy girls the best anyway.


Having more than one sexual partner, or having experienced double penetration, doesn't make you untrustworthy and unstable. If a girl didn't diligently guard her nether regions (sorry, I particularly like that wording), so basically she had sex during college, it doesn't mean she's more likely to cheat. Even if she had sex with ten men (which would be well higher than the average in my country), she _didn't committ to strict monogamy_ with them. Maybe she had ten boyfriends and had sex with all of them, but stayed faithful to them when they were together. Maybe she never had a boyfriend and just had sex without committment - so she were never unfaithful. If she never cheated on anyone, why are you afraid she could cheat on _you_ after making a lifelong commitment?
If a man consider his wife a slut because she had other sexual partners before him, or if he is afraid she might look for other men after _vowing to spend their life together as a monogamous couple_ - well, this says little about the woman's trustworthiness, but a lot about the man.

Edit: I talk about lifelong commitment because we're talking about marriage, but for me it's the same for serious dating, cohabitation or whatever commitment you choose. If anyone can't trust his/her partner to be faithful because they're not a virgin, or because he/she has much sexual experience, the couple has greater problems than one partner's virginity.


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

Rock Of Ages said:


> How would you really feel touching a woman you know has been touched by over a hundred men before? I am not a paragon of morality, but this does bother me, and a lot. I want to feel special and new. Is that selfish? Perhaps. But it's how I feel and I'm not going to apologise for it. Women never respect men who grovel, capitulate and don't stick to their guns.
> 
> ...
> 
> If you genuinely want to get married, don't turn your nose up at the pious church girl, tortured artist or aloof nerdette, just because they are less flashy than the sorority girls. Never become a white knight for whores. They don't deserve your attentions.


As the aloof nerdette, I like your post 

I wouldn't like to be with a man that has been with a hundred girls, either. He would probably have view of sexual life that's just not compatible with mine. It would make me uncomfortable. But then, dating lots of people would make me uncomfortable - a man who wanted passive anal play, a trans woman, a man who shaved his pubic hair, an intersexual person, someone who had anal bleaching - and it still doesn't mean those people did anything morally wrong. Or that it is ok to slut-shame, basically insulting people for what they choose to do with their genitals, which doesn't concern strangers at all.
Double penetration, or having consensual sex, doesn't make a woman a whore. It makes her a person who has a free sex life - just as having zero partners is a free sex life as well -, not someone who deserves to be insulted and judged and accused of being unfaithful. And if I called her a whore for having sex, that would make _me_ a nosy insulter who pokes into strangers' underwear.



Rock Of Ages said:


> Also, slut-shaming is actually quite logical from an evolutionary standpoint. Women who have a lot of sexual partners are statistically less likely to reproduce and invest their time/resources in any offspring, because their mindset is to have as many partners as possible. As @Amine has said, it is our actions that are indicative of our values, not the other way around.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


Uhm, no. r-K strategy is not about number of partners. It is about _amount of offspring_. Number of partners and investment in offspring aren't related. I see reading further in the topic that you meant it as a metaphor, but it's just... not what the theory is about, and not an hypothesis with proof.

Women with a large number of partners are not statistically less likely to reproduce. I'd like to know where you found that statistics. If we're talking about evolutionary strategies, let's get our facts straight: evolution occurred for hundreds of thousands of years without efficient contraception. We're talking of 199.950 years out of the 200.000 years **** sapiens has been around.
A woman with a large number of partners is naturally more likely to have children with a greater genetic diversity. In groups of fifty people where incest is likely to occur - the setting humans lived in for 190.000 years - genetic diversity is a big plus for your offspring. The mindset of "having as many partner as possible" (which is not the mindset of people who have sex, but anyway) will greatly benefit a woman's reproductive life.
Please read my response to Dante if you're interested in the matter, I'll continue there.





Dante Scioli said:


> Nah hang on though. It does make sense to talk about r/K in the context of human promiscuity. Admittedly, mostly male promiscuity... which is not what his post or this thread are about. But still. It's pointless to say "it applies to species, less so to individual organisms." Yeah, but only because in general individual organisms do not possess the capacity to make individual strategies. Humans do, so the point is moot. Men are absolutely faced with that dilemma:
> 
> K: have offspring with one woman (limiting his reproductive rate to the production rate of her womb). Focus his energy on investment in those children. Priority is quality over quantity.
> r: have offspring with many women (limited only by how many women he can impregnate). Focus his energy on finding more women to impregnate. Priority is on quantity over quality.
> ...


Er, no. Men are not faced with that dilemma, because having dozens of kids without supporting them just means you'll have dozens of dead kids. A woman needs support through pregnancy and lactation to satisfy her nutritionary needs and to care for her offspring.
You're speaking as the woman did all the childrearing and the man just fucked around. That's not true. In a tribe like those where humans live for 190.000 years, childrearing is a communal matter, and everyone supports the children. Gathering can be a single-person activity, but hunting is a group activity and everyone benefits from the game. There are some really good anthropology insights on the matter.
If men and women have sex with multiple partners, and then everyone supports the children, then there is no problem. Everyone will have children who reach reproductive age.
Also, you're speaking as men _knew_ women bear children because of sex. But this was discovered probably when husbandry and agriculture became widespread - more or less 10.000 years ago, out of 200.000 years of **** sapiens' evolution. Before that, a man wouldn't even have the _notion_ of supporting his own children - he just supported the children of the woman he choose as his mate, or the children of the community, or his maternal sister's children.
Why the sister? Evolutionary, it's the behaviour that evolution could select for. Also, from a cultural standpoint, that's a behaviour observed in many tribes similar to a Paleolithic group. These tribes are the most accurate example of how life could have worked 100.000 years ago. So, the sister. From a genetic point of view, a man shares at least 25% of his genes with his maternal sister, or maybe even 50% if they share the same father; his maternal sister's children, therefore, are bound to have a blood connection with him (especially if incest is accepted). On the other hand, the children of his unrelated mate could have no blood connection with him, especially in a non-monogamous society (like many of the tribes we were talking about). What happens then? Children are supported by the community, and the "father role" is played by the maternal uncle. That's also why the children will be adopted by the maternal aunt, if their mother dies, rather than staying with the mother's mate. And that's also why, in many birds and mammals species (especially monogamous species), young adults will often stay with their mother and help raising some siblings, before starting a reproductive life on their own.
Biologically speaking, from an evolutionary standpoint, what makes most sense is to care for offspring you have a matrilinear connection with. And to have sex with your female relatives, throwing in some promiscous sex to add genetic variability. Aaaand that's what we see in many mammals indeed.
_The selfish gene_ has a couple of good chapters on the matter. I think Dawkins wrote more extensively on this, but I can't recall the specific book. Also probably Gould? Not sure about it though.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Amine said:


> Weirdly worded question but I think (?) I see what you mean. Basically I wouldn't be me if I were still a virgin, because I would have made different decisions in the past which weren't in my character to do. All I can say is that with my experience now, I believe that would have been the right way to play it and it would have gotten me the best outcome.


Is the best outcome your ability to commit? Are you less able to commit now due to your sexual history? 
I'm asking how your 'market value' would have been higher than it is now if you were still a virgin? 
It sounds ridiculous to me when applied to a man, so I wondered if men recognise their own lower value after sexual encounters/relationships, therefore applying it to women. 



> Well, that's good because I'm not advocating being a trophy. I'm advocating responsibility, discretion, and establishing a trustworthy and dependable persona. These values aren't arbitrary, and they are increasingly rare in society, to the point now where adopting them is actually the counter-cultural thing to do. Society dictates that you should be sexually "liberated", if you could call it that. Staying a virgin is the "weird" route.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously virginity _by itself_ isn't necessarily an indicator of good character etc, but obviously (again) that's only a significant part of the picture.


My point is that. Virginity can be _an indicator_ of a responsible individual, but men with this attitude aren't using the information as an indicator. They're using it to make a judgement of a persons overall value, without considering the overall person. No guy in this thread who has a problem with dating a woman who's been dp'd has stated (I don't think) that he would date a woman who's been dp'd, but he would take that information into account when assessing her overall character. It's either viewed as a deal breaker or a reason to use protection (shocking that they need a reason actually).

If sexual history is only an indicator, then how is it a deal breaker? 
It makes no sense. 
If it's a deal breaker, then it's the problem. I don't see any logical reason for it being the problem. So I'm left with the impression that it's an ego thing on part of the man. If so, that makes a virgin a trophy of sorts. Her previous abstinence has achieved nothing significant, but the opportunity to feed his ego.




> I still think that "trust issues" is generally speaking (as in, maybe you're an exception to what I'm about to say and I get that) a wrong-headed idea that has arisen in a society where people are encouraged to make bad decisions. Look at it in that light for a moment and realize, it actually is something a psychopath would try to use to persuade you. "You won't do what I want? You won't make this risky decision? What, do you have trust issues or something?"
> 
> Trust is by its nature _hard to establish_. It has to be, otherwise it doesn't mean anything and it isn't even present. Just because a person may have high expectations for dependability in others, which is rare, doesn't mean they have "trust issues".


By 'trust issues', I meant issues, not a healthy and reasonable amount of caution. When abstaining from sex is a result of viewing men as the enemy who you have to defend yourself against, it's not a foundation for a healthy and balanced relationship. 



> Human relationships are extremely difficult and fragile things to keep together and functioning. A haphazard attitude towards them will come back to bite anyone who holds it. This regularly happens, as we know. If a person doesn't want to keep getting bitten, they can make sure that whoever they associate with meets high standards of dependability, coherent thought, discipline as opposed to indulgence, etc.


Maybe we need to define haphazard attitudes towards relationships. Does casual sex come with irresponsibility in general? If not,
how much consideration did the woman put into her decision? What were her reasons? Does being dp'd make her extremely promiscuous? What's promiscuous or what's too promiscuous? 
Does any of this even matter?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Rock Of Ages said:


> How would you really feel touching a woman you know has been touched by over a hundred men before? I am not a paragon of morality, but this does bother me, and a lot. *I want to feel special and new.* Is that selfish? Perhaps. But it's how I feel and I'm not going to apologise for it. Women never respect men who grovel, capitulate and don't stick to their guns.
> 
> Also, slut-shaming is actually quite logical from an evolutionary standpoint. Women who have a lot of sexual partners are statistically less likely to reproduce and invest their time/resources in any offspring, because their mindset is to have as many partners as possible. As @Amine has said, it is our actions that are indicative of our values, not the other way around.
> 
> ...


Yay. We have a winner! 

Yes, it does make you selfish, but that's ok. There's nothing wrong with this kind of selfishness, only when you expect women to cater for it under the guise of _their_ 'market value'.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

JayShambles said:


> Nope, but I believe in women who haven't been DP'd


:laughing: 

Aww, sweetie, you're so naive. 

jk


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

Another evolutionary insight - not related to double penetration but to sex with different partners. Since it seems widely accepted that for evolutionary advantage, a man should want his woman to stay "pure" until she can get his - and only his - precious semen.
Since a man will be putting effort into feeding the pregnant/lactating woman and raising the child... it would make more sense to want a woman who has already proven herself sexually receptive, fertile (has conceived and carried a pregnancy full-term at least once, birthing without problems) and a capable mother (has reared a child past the peak of infantile mortality, which could be anywhere from 2 to 5 years). Otherwise he could be courting, supporting and protecting an infertile woman (=impossible conception, or life-threatening miscarriage, or pre-term birth which throws away all the effort), a woman with an unfit pelvis (dead baby at birth, or even dead mother) or simply a woman incapable of mothering. That would be a really unsuccessful strategy, don't you think? Especially with the amount of malnourished women who will have menstrual problems or skeletal problems (=deformed pelvis) - which would be almost everyone in a pre-historic setting.
I think this "fertility proof" is required in some cultures for a man to accept the marriage. I'm not sure where I read it though.


----------



## JayShambles (Aug 9, 2016)

Kyn said:


> :laughing:
> 
> Aww, sweetie, you're so naive.
> 
> jk


Oh babe, have you been DP'd? That's it, I'm calling the wedding off


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Interesting conversation 



Cast said:


> Er, no. Men are not faced with that dilemma, because having dozens of kids without supporting them just means you'll have dozens of dead kids. A woman needs support through pregnancy and lactation to satisfy her nutritionary needs and to care for her offspring.
> You're speaking as the woman did all the childrearing and the man just fucked around. That's not true. In a tribe like those where humans live for 199.900 years, childrearing is a common matter, and everyone supports the children. Gathering can be a single-person activity, but hunting is a group activity and everyone benefits from the game. There are some really good anthropology insights on the matter.
> If men and women have sex with multiple partners, and then everyone supports the children, then there is no problem. Everyone will have children who reach reproductive age.


Both hunting and gathering can be single-person or group activity that everyone benefits from. Also it hasn't been the case that everyone will have children, mothers way outnumber fathers in human evolutionary history, and the dilemma therefore has been real, if it has been the case that women haven't always been willing to have sex with just anybody. I don't think there has been equal opportunities for all men of the tribe to father children. It doesn't matter if people have understood the causality any more than animals do, understanding it is not a prerequisite to living out evolutionary strategies. It's true that the human mother needs support, but it does not have to be the biological father who does the supporting, therefore him walking away to mind his own business does not necessarily lead to dead children. Even if it does, it's not that much of a effort lost in his part. The mother has much more at stake, so she's most likely continuing to invest on the child she's carried and given birth to, as well as the family of the mother more likely will, for having invested in her to begin with, so it's not a simple arrangement. The father has much more options.

But this also means that if she can support herself and her child, or has support from her family, or from the society, she does not need the father to stick around. In fact is better for her, in evolutionary sense, in a lot of cases to minimize the father's impact on the child, because there is a risk involved in letting other people get in the way of raising your kid. Anyone who is not the mother is, from the mother's perspective, possibly, or even likely, bad influence. Hypothetically her ideal reproductive situation would be just multiplying herself, right, if only it was a viable option for humans, and the second best option is get as much of the good stuff from other(s) as you can and leave out as much of the negatives as you can. Completely sharing the parental efforts is the best option in very few cases because you can't just take the best from them, you have to give and negotiate and be vulnerable, and that is not necessarily as pleasant. Only if what the other people have to offer outweighs the risk involved, you let them have a role, to an optimal extent if it's something in your control. 

And furthermore, maybe more relevant to the preceding conversation, what has happened in the past 100 years is an unimaginable rise in living conditions. So, less than ever, women are dependent on men, and men also, I think, have less need to secure their part as the only father of her children because it is a trade of, most likely. (Hence the DPing being the new loss of virginity, *grin*.) 

***

And also, the proof of fertility, I think it was between @Kyn and I that it was discovered here on PerC, that we women have boobs as an indicator of fertility even prior to having children. It was a more complicated theory involving all sorts of things, not double penetration though, but like scissoring I think, but mostly it was about boobs. But on a more serious note, all in all I don't think the male selection pressure (I mean males being picky about who they bang) has ever been a very great factor in hominid evolution, except after we got so far that it really did take two adults to successfully raise a child.


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

@Jamaia I'd like to hear the boobs theory 



> It's true that the human mother needs support, but it does not have to be the biological father who does the supporting, therefore him walking away to mind his own business does not necessarily lead to dead children. Even if it does, it's not that much of a effort lost in his part.


Not much effort lost, but certainly not a good reproductive strategy: you'd be investing in winning a woman's sexual interest and then only getting dead children. Not an effective strategy to spread your genes. If you don't rape women, you need to win them with effort; if you rape them, sooner or later you'll end up dead at the hand of a woman's family.
You're right about the woman's family supporting her through the pregnancy. I wrote about it in response to Dante, I find it a really fascinating strategy. Matrilinear heritage.
What I was contradicting here is that (citing Rock of Ages, I think) "slut shaming makes evolutionary sense, a man shouldn't want to invest in a promiscuous woman". Slut shaming doesn't make that much evolutionary sense, when everyone is having sex with multiple partners, childrearing is a communal investment and family bonds are matrilinear. We shouldn't be hiding behind fake science to insult people.

About hunting as a single-person activity: most tribes I read about hunt collectively and then share the game among hunters, fertile women and sometimes children. I'm not aware of tribes where solo hunting is the norm - or at least solo hunting as an effective sustainance mean - because that effort could be more efficiently spent in a group activity for a larger prey.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Cast said:


> @Jamaia I'd like to hear the boobs theory
> 
> 
> Not much effort lost, but certainly not a good reproductive strategy: you'd be investing in winning a woman's sexual interest and then only getting dead children. Not an effective strategy to spread your genes. If you don't rape women, you need to win them with effort; if you rape them, sooner or later you'll end up dead at the hand of a woman's family.
> ...


I'm looking for the boobs thread, I've only so far found "Girls: do you love boob hugging your cat?" and it wasn't that, even though it's possible that thread too has evolved into something incredible like this thread, "Men, would you date a female who has been double penetrated before" . 

It can be an excellent reproductive strategy in certain conditions, he can go on increasing his wealth or whatever to secure more ladies and someone somewhere is taking care of his child. Maybe sticking around would've been more costly and what if the kid dies anyway. In some conditions it's not that great, but even then it's a chance to have sex, so not that bad.

Slut shaming, well I'd think reading too much into it is one thing, it can be just a way to establish some social hierarchy. It could be more of a female thing than a male thing anyway. The favoring of virgins (which is not exactly slut shaming) happens in the context of establishing a relationship beyond sex, so it's not so much about sex as it is about resources.

And hunting, it depends what kind of tools you have and what kind of game there is, people all over hunt things like squirrels and rabbits, which can be done by one person with maybe dogs. It's not much meat but it is something. Hunting big game is risky but sometimes it's worth the risk, not always.


I'm not sure if it was @Kyn whose name prior to Kyn I've forgotten , it was maybe @Dalien after all or someone else: http://personalitycafe.com/spam-world/940282-boobs-babies-9.html (somewhere in there) Oh that thread is such a disappointment, that apa. I'm not sure if it really was in that thread or some other. Maybe it was something that stayed in the Debate forum... I regret I even mentioned it, but my reasoning of it goes something like this:

Having breasts make no sense because they can be really awkward and generally just get in the way of things. No creature would choose to have two sensitive lumps of fat attached to their chest, and especially when any kind of minor hormonal imbalance or mere aging affects the symmetry of them so greatly, it's not good, normally you would not want anything asymmetrical on you, and particularly in species that seems to favor youth, well boobs often look great if you're young but not for long. But it's a universal feature among women, granted some have very small breasts, but still. Bonobos apparently have some breastyness going on too, but not to the same extent. 

Somehow having visible breasts has been a real important thing for humans, and I think it is because standing on two feet hid the nether regions and it made it more difficult to tell if a human is a man or a woman, and because recognizing the sex of another is very important, perhaps even more so if the social groups got larger or you also interacted with strangers, and because we suck at smell so visual cues are the best bet. Possibly there was a time when someone was treated very differently based on if they were male or female, like a male was perhaps attacked and killed but a female not, and it was vital for females to develop some way of clearly announcing their sex so that they are not mistaken as a male. Having wider hips of course is one but there was room on the chest to do something there, and having visible breasts is a perfect cue for I'M A WOMAN because it already was something only lactating mothers had, thus making it explicitly feminine thing. And perhaps, with walking upright and pelvis getting narrower and infants' heads growing and birth getting ever more difficult, it really did become a cue for "I've given birth and survived, but there's no kid around, so good for you who ever snatches me".


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

JayShambles said:


> Oh babe, have you been DP'd? That's it, I'm calling the wedding off


Don't be like that, honey. I tried saving myself for you, I really did, but you weren't home. :kitteh:


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@Jamaia yes it was me discussing boobs with you and I believe that's the thread.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Kyn said:


> @Jamaia yes it was me discussing boobs with you and I believe that's the thread.


So... This is a bit awkward to ask after all this time but was there some... lesbian sex element involved too, in that "discussion", my memory is... I'm not sure what happened. Sometimes in a discussion one thing leads to another and so...


----------



## JayShambles (Aug 9, 2016)

Kyn said:


> Don't be like that, honey. I tried saving myself for you, I really did, but you weren't home. :kitteh:


Just tell me advanced next time so we can work something out


----------



## Lost_in_Arca (Jan 5, 2017)

> Slut shaming, well I'd think reading too much into it is one thing, it can be just a way to establish some social hierarchy. It could be more of a female thing than a male thing anyway. The favoring of virgins (which is not exactly slut shaming) happens in the context of establishing a relationship beyond sex, so it's not so much about sex as it is about resources.


I'm sorry, and how this makes slut shaming acceptable?
Call it that way or "virgin prioritizing", but it's an overall stupid - if not downright hurtful - practice all the same.

I'm under impression here that we are missing the point. I'd like to remember to you all how easy it is to take some partial, incorrect, or simply difficult to verify "evolutionary data" and justify the more bizzare social theories upon it. 

_Why, don't we share a part of the evolutionary line with wolves? So there must be alpha and beta males/females in every group!
Isn't it true that gorillas have harem societies, where a single male leader gets to reproduce? Then we should seek male dominance too!_

Of course, mine are pretty stupid examples, but you'll forgive me if I'm not a biologist.

Regardless of what prehistorical societies could or couldn't have been, we have to judge facts with logical reasoning. Trying to dig up biological evidence to support a totally unrelated thesis reeks of confirmation bias to me. And why should we take decisions looking at evolution? When did natural selection become the arbiter of our moral judgment? 

Forgive me if I'm coming out blunt, but I'd rather see the discussion go back on track.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Lost_in_Arca said:


> I'm sorry, and how this makes slut shaming acceptable?
> Call it that way or "virgin prioritizing", but it's an overall stupid - if not downright hurtful - practice all the same.
> 
> I'm under impression here that we are missing the point. I'd like to remember to you all how easy it is to take some partial, incorrect, or simply difficult to verify "evolutionary data" and justify the more bizzare social theories upon it.
> ...


You'd rather see some blunt DP?

Ok, evolutionary or biological evidence of course does not have to lead to a moral judgement. Also how wolves and gorillas have organized their existence does say something of people too, they're representatives of one evolutionary path that has been quite successful under certain conditions, actually both of their systems are not that far from people. The alpha wolves are called parents and humans certainly have had harems. 

Both "slut shaming" and "virgin prioritizing" is what it is. Hurts some, benefits some.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

BearRun said:


> In that case, I should let guys think I've had dozens of partners to cull the ones that value me based on my "credit score". I don't want a guy like that.


Lol. I've actually done exactly this. Let dudes think that I'm more promiscuous than I really am to weed out the ones who aren't interested in getting to know women as individual people - who see them more as objects to be used to fill the position of "wife" for the lifestyle they're after. The less of an individual she is, the easier it is to shove her into the picture with the white picket fence that's been pre-determined, I guess.

OR - the dudes who project their shadow, and have probably been with at least twice, if not triple or more the people I've been with. I don't want an STD either. Not that I'd rule out a dude due to partner count alone. I've found that these are usually (about) the ratios when it comes to "promiscuous" guys vs. girls though, from what I know from what people have disclosed to me at least. I was recently surprised to learn that a dude (friend) who isn't even that attractive is at about the same count I am. 

Granted, my partner count isn't exactly low, but I'm also pretty discriminate. It's an attractive line up, I won't lie. LOL. This has been my argument in the past in these sorts of debates too, but I don't think some guys realize just how often some women are propositioned. It's all relative.

Your point about the girl you knew who you doubt was choosy in her marriage, monogamous or not, is one I've made in the past as well.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Jamaia said:


> So... This is a bit awkward to ask after all this time but was there some... lesbian sex element involved too, in that "discussion", my memory is... I'm not sure what happened. Sometimes in a discussion one thing leads to another and so...



I recall some mutual clitoral stimulation..... just for the sake of bonding.....and being hetero isn't an excuse.... or something?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

JayShambles said:


> Just tell me advanced next time so we can work something out


Oh well, in that case, how do you feel about female bonding activities?


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

JayShambles said:


> If a girl you were into openly expressed herself and told you she had been double penetrated by two men before, would that turn you off?
> 
> If you only found out while you were dating would that make a difference?


The "Chasing Amy" sort of thing? I think insecure men can get themselves seriously bent out of shape over their female lover's sexual past. I'd say only ask such things if you're secure in where you are with her, and yourself, otherwise, such questions are just going to lead you into a spiral of fear, self-doubt, and loss of desire. 

Hypothetically, she is choosing to share herself with you NOW. You have no control over her past choices, nor should it affect how you feel about her moving forward.

Caveat: The only reason a lover's sexual history should be of any concern has to do with STD's (or STI's).


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Kyn said:


> I recall some mutual clitoral stimulation..... just for the sake of bonding.....and being hetero isn't an excuse.... or something?


I think it was very late at night on some continent, then of course female sexuality is fluid and with the vulva located conveniently and all... I'm sure it happens to many people.


***

:shocked: Except I only found one of your posts in that thread, about man chests! So it... it seems like, it was either someone else or some other time. But doesn't matter because it's just normal bonding thing for humans, it doesn't count, and no one needs to know. I mean nothing to be embarrassed about. Not that I am.

*** For realz I think there was another boob thread here on S&R where this happened.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Rock Of Ages said:


> Well, this is probably a personality difference. *I am quite open about being very interested in how random women view me *- I like to tailor a personality to charm whatever audience I am around (or not, haha) ...
> 
> In summary,* it wouldn't bother me to hear my perceived value discussed*, as long as it wasn't being done in bad taste. I talk about women and how I rate them with abandon, I mean this is what guys do - in my view it is the context, your intentions, that matter as much as the content.


Do you have any pictures on the forum? How attractive would you say you are? If you tailor your personality to charm whomever you're around, would you say that you're dishonest and/or manipulative? Do you view that as emotionally and mentally healthy? What's your financial situation look like? How large is your dick? (<That might qualify as being "in bad taste" so you can obviously ignore if you so choose). Would you say that you're good in bed, regardless? Do you have a high partner count? 

If market value is how hot, rich and mentally stable you are, from your perspective... I am sorta curious how you'd size up against that. 

I think a lot of people, both men and women, have a sort of... consumerist mindset now when it comes to dating and relationships. There's so many options, especially with social media. Really though, it's still a barter system (?) ...if viewed in that kinda light - an exchange as always. 

I can also tell horror stories about dudes who act like _they're_ the prize if you wanna tell yours about the used up spinsters  There's many in my dating pool (early thirties) and they don't seem super happy. They run around like they're Batman (when they're not - supposedly men over-estimate their attractiveness, while women tend to under-estimate) and it promotes this sort of... (resentful?) hostility. I was recently talking with a woman I met out and about who had just re-joined the adult dating scene, and was making very similar observations. Gorgeous, too. If what you want to see is a beautiful utopia full of happy couples growing old together, you're not really contributing to the sort of energy probably necessary for such things to grow if (?) that's what you're putting out there. 

It is kind of funny though how many men now have this... princess mentality, that they won't tolerate in women. I might be old fashioned, but if that should be present in _anyone_, it shouldn't be the dude, imo. (Because pregnancy and biological clocks and what not maybe?) But yea, it's pretty ironic the dudes who talk about how they'll kick a woman to the curb for minor transgressions (I'm assuming listening to some talk that they've probably gone through like 25 gf's too, at least) who seem to want this unconditional love in return. 

So I'd imagine that if you think you're above gender role norms (I'M the princess to be won! <a dude) while expecting the woman to abide by arguably antiquated ones (saving herself) that you must be preeeettttttyyy special  Otherwise, can you imagine the disappointment? A woman devoting her life to the possibility of you coming along - and then you aren't even Prince Charming? That sounds like it could be a recipe for divorce too.


----------



## OutsideLookingIn391 (Mar 10, 2017)

I'm glad we are back on track here. Are the chest-thumping stastistics-mongers gone? How can one justify moral superiority with statistics? Delusional.


----------



## JayShambles (Aug 9, 2016)

Kyn said:


> Oh well, in that case, how do you feel about female bonding activities?


I'd say that I'm very open minded


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Jamaia said:


> I think it was very late at night on some continent, then of course female sexuality is fluid and with the vulva located conveniently and all... I'm sure it happens to many people.
> 
> 
> ***
> ...


http://personalitycafe.com/sex-rela...u-cope-unhealthy-body-sex-3.html#post32166226 :happy:

That's where it all happened. It was necessary for bringing the forum community closer together. It was clearly drifting apart beforehand. :tongue:


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Kyn said:


> http://personalitycafe.com/sex-rela...u-cope-unhealthy-body-sex-3.html#post32166226 :happy:
> 
> That's where it all happened. It was necessary for bringing the forum community closer together. It was clearly drifting apart beforehand. :tongue:


Ah yes, you went by the name Neverontime... It's all coming back to me :blushed:


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Amine said:


> it also would definitely haunt me to think that a future wife of mine had sex with one of these guys at any point in her life, and I was just the "oh shit I'm not getting any younger time to find a guy who will stick with me" option or something.


You don't think women have the same concerns? That they're the "safe" option (who "gets" (<lol) all the responsibility) (wife-y), but maybe not what the other person actually wants ( ...mistress)? Only women are more supposed to save themselves for this potentiality... and for it to be more definitive of the reality of their lives, overall (rather than a single unfortunate experience). No experimenting for the sake of self discovery, no occasional fun for the sake of yolo, no exploration for a clearer view of what she wants... nope. Just putting it all down for this one guy (even more of a gamble if she's inexperienced) - to ease his insecurity - which is quite possibly lesser than hers. Like she's expected to live for him, while he lives for himself. A man who would be okay with that is unattractive to me for what I see as obvious reasons.



Amine said:


> Does it matter if I have had sex with 100 guys? No, tomorrow I could totally change and become committed monogamous relationship material, and who is anyone to say they doubt it? Or to say having slept with 100 guys defines me in any way?


I mean, you could. The most scandalous stories regarding cheating and divorce I've heard have honestly involved bored couples in suburbia, often having mid-life crises due to not sowing wild oats beforehand. That's the problem with credit scores and the mentality surrounding them... they base all prediction for the future from the past, rather than look at patterns overall. 

I've wondered if it's because our society is so Si heavy (I believe Si dom's and auxiliary's supposedly make up a large percentage of the population?) Then it's set up where patterns perpetuate themselves (when they may not otherwise?) based on where punishments and rewards go and how that affects one's trajectory.



Amine said:


> And it's not like I don't have my sort of wild past either, but I'm trying to overcome it and self-aware of how it reflects on me. At most I'd present it as more of a confession/disclosure, after establishing through time and actions that it isn't me anymore. And I would expect to be judged.


I actually kind of agree with this. I've been trying to be more cognizant of image too. Only I've sort of been doing the opposite and spilling my guts more often to try to get some... practice, I guess, when it comes to how I tell my stories. Gain some control over it all. There's a fine line between owning your story and appearing completely shameless. People who don't have their own backs tend to be less likely to have the backs of others, but then those who are completely shameless may be unwilling to accept fault in a relationship when necessary.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

...and for the record. I've never been DP'ed, but it's not for the sake of keeping my DP virginity package wrapped for some hypothetical dude who may only exist in my imagination. I just need a certain degree of (one on one?) intimacy in sex. (But never say never). I'm coming to the conclusion that I'm maybe more demi than I realized. It's made finding something casual difficult, but it's been more a matter of _function_ than anything else. Getting the lady boner up, and the frustration surrounding that. And then in instances where there is some feeling - I think dudes assume you want something serious right out the gate and.

While I'm complaining. Or maybe just making observations. Is this another projection? Like where maybe he wants something serious? We don't really do much when it comes to helping "him" achieve this, do we? Most, um, acquisition (?) material is aimed at women for relationships, and at getting laid for men. I've found men less willing to accept advice overall too. They'll discredit where it's coming from - feminazi, "who hurt you", shut up - you've had two dicks at once... whatever. Lol. It's really arrogant. This is where I was coming from with a prior post when I mentioned resentment.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Cast said:


> Er, no. Men are not faced with that dilemma, because having dozens of kids without supporting them just means you'll have dozens of dead kids. A woman needs support through pregnancy and lactation to satisfy her nutritionary needs and to care for her offspring.
> You're speaking as the woman did all the childrearing and the man just fucked around. That's not true. In a tribe like those where humans live for 190.000 years, childrearing is a communal matter, and everyone supports the children. Gathering can be a single-person activity, but hunting is a group activity and everyone benefits from the game. There are some really good anthropology insights on the matter.
> If men and women have sex with multiple partners, and then everyone supports the children, then there is no problem. Everyone will have children who reach reproductive age.
> Also, you're speaking as men _knew_ women bear children because of sex. But this was discovered probably when husbandry and agriculture became widespread - more or less 10.000 years ago, out of 200.000 years of **** sapiens' evolution. Before that, a man wouldn't even have the _notion_ of supporting his own children - he just supported the children of the woman he choose as his mate, or the children of the community, or his maternal sister's children.
> ...


I was speaking more from a modern perspective (last 10,000 years). Today, men do have that choice to make.

However, I think the concept still holds up in the native environment, just not as sharply. An understanding of paternity is not necessary. A male with dozens of kids and no intention to support them does not lead to dozens of dead kids. As you said, the "father role" in the native state is played by the maternal uncle. So an r-strategist certainly can go waltz about being Johnny Appleseed and expect other men to take care of his children.

Of course, this reproductive strategy is occurring on an unconscious level. All the man has to decide is whether to invest in one woman or in all women. The rest of the strategy is not necessarily conscious.


----------



## Lost_in_Arca (Jan 5, 2017)

Jamaia said:


> You'd rather see some blunt DP?
> 
> Ok, evolutionary or biological evidence of course does not have to lead to a moral judgement. Also how wolves and gorillas have organized their existence does say something of people too, they're representatives of one evolutionary path that has been quite successful under certain conditions, actually both of their systems are not that far from people. The alpha wolves are called parents and humans certainly have had harems.
> 
> Both "slut shaming" and "virgin prioritizing" is what it is. Hurts some, benefits some.


Yea, murder also tipically benefits some. Generally not the one getting killed.

Lets just hide behind people insecurities and plain stupidity and call it a day. What could possibily go wrong, right.


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

Dante Scioli said:


> I was speaking more from a modern perspective (last 10,000 years). Today, men do have that choice to make.
> 
> However, I think the concept still holds up in the native environment, just not as sharply. An understanding of paternity is not necessary. A male with dozens of kids and no intention to support them does not lead to dozens of dead kids. As you said, the "father role" in the native state is played by the maternal uncle. So an r-strategist certainly can go waltz about being Johnny Appleseed and expect other men to take care of his children.
> 
> Of course, this reproductive strategy is occurring on an unconscious level. All the man has to decide is whether to invest in one woman or in all women. The rest of the strategy is not necessarily conscious.


Yes, he can expect other man to take care of his children, just as he can expect himself to take care of other men's children.
That's why I'm saying that restricting sexual activity in women, or choosing sex mates based on their number of previous partners, wouldn't make sense for him. He wouldn't be caring for someone else's children because his sexual partner was promiscuous, because he wouldn't be caring for his sexual partner's children in the first place. He'd be caring for his sister's children, so what would be his problem with "sluts"?
And if this wasn't the case - meaning that he wouldn't be caring for his sister's offspring, and mothers had to raise children alone, without their male relatives help - then he would _have to_ stick around after impregnating a female. Otherwise yes, he'd have dead kids.

You were talking about a choice that stems from natural selection and evolution. Having a large number of kids and abandoning them vs having fewer kids and highly investing in them. If we're talking about evolution, then we're talking about 200.000 years of human history. If we're talking about _today_, then reproductive strategies have nothing to do with it, since people use contraception.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Cast said:


> Yes, he can expect other man to take care of his children, just as he can expect himself to take care of other men's children.
> That's why I'm saying that restricting sexual activity in women, or choosing sex mates based on their number of previous partners, wouldn't make sense for him. He wouldn't be caring for someone else's children because his sexual partner was promiscuous, because he wouldn't be caring for his sexual partner's children in the first place. He'd be caring for his sister's children, so what would be his problem with "sluts"?
> And if this wasn't the case - meaning that he wouldn't be caring for his sister's offspring, and mothers had to raise children alone, without their male relatives help - then he would _have to_ stick around after impregnating a female. Otherwise yes, he'd have dead kids.
> 
> You were talking about a choice that stems from natural selection and evolution. Having a large number of kids and abandoning them vs having fewer kids and highly investing in them. If we're talking about evolution, then we're talking about 200.000 years of human history. If we're talking about _today_, then reproductive strategies have nothing to do with it, since people use contraception.


You make an interesting point about primitive promiscuity and I don't think anyone really knows the answer to that. Is "free love" the native human state? Polynesians certainly lived that society, though they were not paleolithic.

However, that question aside, there is more to the story. Yes, his children would be raised by their maternal uncle and would receive some investment from him, but his children would also receive investment from their mother's current lover. That's what you've neglected here.

Women certainly always secured at least some resources from their lovers, possibly rivaling or exceeding investment from their brothers. I don't think that's disputable. So again, we have the very real situation where a man can choose to be a faithful K-strategist or a promiscuous r-strategist with all the accompanying implications. Again, I concede that in the native state there was probably more opportunity for hybridization between r and K strategies than in the era of formal marriage.

And that's to say nothing of the very obvious phenomenon of harems. When formal societal rules of one-to-one male-female sexual partnerships are weakened or abandoned, the inevitable result is a concentration of sex around a small minority of males. This splits men into very obvious categories of r and K.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Lost_in_Arca said:


> Yea, murder also tipically benefits some. Generally not the one getting killed.
> 
> Lets just hide behind people insecurities and plain stupidity and call it a day. What could possibily go wrong, right.


Sometimes killing other people is indeed beneficial. I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying men shouldn't have preferences?



Cast said:


> Yes, he can expect other man to take care of his children, just as he can expect himself to take care of other men's children.
> That's why I'm saying that restricting sexual activity in women, or choosing sex mates based on their number of previous partners, wouldn't make sense for him. He wouldn't be caring for someone else's children because his sexual partner was promiscuous, because he wouldn't be caring for his sexual partner's children in the first place. He'd be caring for his sister's children, so what would be his problem with "sluts"?


I think this is complicating the matter, I don't think men anywhere care that much how many guys or DPs or TPs or whatever someone they're just having sex with has had. Or some do, but not that many, if they did, well prostitutes would be expensive like... wives. The promiscuity is only a factor if there's a wish of relationship beyond sex. 



> And if this wasn't the case - meaning that he wouldn't be caring for his sister's offspring, and mothers had to raise children alone, without their male relatives help - then he would _have to_ stick around after impregnating a female. Otherwise yes, he'd have dead kids.


Still not necessary true, the mother would have her family; sisters, mother who might help, and that might be enough. In general though, I do think men were needed in some form, or that it was a mixed strategy:



> You were talking about a choice that stems from natural selection and evolution. Having a large number of kids and abandoning them vs having fewer kids and highly investing in them. If we're talking about evolution, then we're talking about 200.000 years of human history. If we're talking about _today_, then reproductive strategies have nothing to do with it, since people use contraception.


The main strategy has probably been the father is invested in either the immediate nuclear family (father, mother(s), children) or at least a relatively tight extended family/tribe, where he is related to a lot of them. Just because most of his efforts, similarly to all the other men of the tribe, go towards supporting one woman, doesn't mean that he shouldn't and wouldn't try to have sex with other women too. Of course it would be in the interest of the other men to stop him and guard their mates, they probably did, and it would've been in the interest of his wife to try to keep him from straying, at least not get so involved with another woman as to leave her and their children, and even then it would be in the interest of the wife to both have sex with other men and maybe even find a better husband some day. All this still plays out in today's societies and it doesn't matter if there's contraception or not.


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

Dante Scioli said:


> However, that question aside, there is more to the story. Yes, his children would be raised by their maternal uncle and would receive some investment from him, but his children would also receive investment from their mother's current lover. That's what you've neglected here.


Sorry, that's... the point I was making. In this scenario, every male is caring for someone else's children, unless incest is accepted - but it's not a good idea for genetic reasons to have only incestous sex, so it would make sense to have more partners anyway. Given this scenario, it doesn't make sense for a man to avoid "sluts" so that he doesn't invest in children unrelated to him, since that's what everyone is doing.
What you call K-strategist or r-strategist are actually very little differences in investment, since _you need to care for some woman's offspring anyway_. This investment can have little variations in its amount, but I don't think that's nearly enough to speak of two different evolutionary strategies.
If we're not talking about evolutionary strategies, but only about the current situations, then we need to take offspring out of the equation - since it is now an avoidable consequence of sex.



> And that's to say nothing of the very obvious phenomenon of harems. When formal societal rules of one-to-one male-female sexual partnerships are weakened or abandoned, the inevitable result is a concentration of sex around a small minority of males. This splits men into very obvious categories of r and K.


What do you mean by splitting? With a harem, a man will _have_ to invest in his offspring, since at this point the offspring is most likely his - and if he doesn't invest in his offspring, no one else will, and we've got dead kids again. In every society with formal marriage and biological father-children bond, a man can only have as many wives as he can sustain - and that includes the children his wives will bear him.

It is a really nice discussion, but maybe we should go on in another thread...?

Going back to the topic: do you think these different reproductive strategies could make a man more/less willing to accept a woman who had "wild sex" (as defined by their cultural norms)? And if so, even with means to avoid STIs and unwanted conception?


----------



## BearRun (Mar 3, 2017)

Dante Scioli said:


> That says a lot about you and very little about the theory, I'm afraid.
> 
> I'm not sure what it is exactly that you find threatening about it, but I can guess it has to do with turning a cynical eye to female value. Never mind that the eye is cynical with regard to everything it looks at.


Psychology is a soft science. It already has difficulty with being seen as a science. Evolutionary psychology isn't even on thin ice. It's the surface of a pit of sinking sad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology More respected scientific fields have a ton of issues with it, most noteworthy is that it's mostly men going into it. Looking to explain away their opinions with stories. It says something about the men pushing their own agenda's and trying to dress it up like science just like the old eugenics movements.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

BearRun said:


> Psychology is a soft science. It already has difficulty with being seen as a science. Evolutionary psychology isn't even on thin ice. It's the surface of a pit of sinking sad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology More respected scientific fields have a ton of issues with it, most noteworthy is that it's mostly men going into it. Looking to explain away their opinions with stories. It says something about the men pushing their own agenda's and trying to dress it up like science just like the old eugenics movements.


Can you see how that's a very belligerent stance to take?

"I don't like your theory. I won't explain why, but you're a bigot for thinking it."

I made it quite clear that those ideas were a theory, my own theory, which I had put together *just now* in this thread *from my own ideas*. I don't know why you're acting like I tried to pass it off as _peer-reviewed scientific fact_.

It's a theory derived more from reasoning than observation, the kind of thing that Ni-Ti loves to do. Since you are presumably an ISTP with Ti-Ni, you should fully understand that.

This conversation is not going to go anywhere unless you engage the theory or present an alternative. If you're going to just keep trying to lecture me from the moral high ground, this is a waste of time.


----------



## BearRun (Mar 3, 2017)

Dante Scioli said:


> Can you see how that's a very belligerent stance to take?
> 
> "I don't like your theory. I won't explain why, but you're a bigot for thinking it."
> 
> ...


And I presented my own points, which you didn't engage. Just reacted to me disliking your support of evolutionary psychology quacks. Who's belligerent?


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

BearRun said:


> And I presented my own points, which you didn't engage. Just reacted to me disliking your support of evolutionary psychology quacks. Who's belligerent?


What points? You argued that it's difficult or impossible to cheat in a society without privacy. I said I wasn't talking about cheating. Did you argue anything else?

As for that cheating bit though, I mean obviously it's not impossible to cheat in a society without privacy. I'm sure people always managed it. And what's more, why would they have to cheat? What about the possibility of open relationships where one party wants it to not be an open relationship? That's not exactly cheating and it doesn't require privacy either, and it's a perfectly functional stand-in conceptually.


----------



## baitedcrow (Dec 22, 2015)

The reason why people that know better about these things often limit engagement with armchair evolutionary psychologists on the internet is because 1) it's a crapshoot as to whether they will really listen or integrate new/contradictory information (as evinced by you repeating yourself rather stridently despite holes having been poked in your theory many times within this thread already - some of which you acknowledged you had no way of redressing) and 2) Google is a thing; if you truly want to understand how your ideas fit with our actual-factual data-driven understanding of how things possibly were, how they are, and how evolution even works, you can always go look it up without having intermediaries paraphrase everything for you. I mean I've already pointed out one book you could read that would debunk some of the assumptions that your theory rests on ("Adapting Minds," David J Buller). But the devil is in the technical details with this shit and it takes good time to lay them out comprehensibly, so I at least am not going to expend too much effort re-typing what people more qualified than me have already done a better job of writing just to help you feel intellectually respected.

To the extent that you're "just theorizing" and not worried about actually taking leave to verify your claims/assumptions (some of which are not going to be directly verifiable no matter what you do because of the period you're theorizing about), you're spinning an ungrounded narrative and nothing else. You are mythologizing. 

You've also aired worries about how Tinder, etc. could be changing society, which suggests you may be mythologizing for a reason.

There are only so many times a person can go through the motions of credibly undermining this oh-so-unique set of ideas before they run out of patience for it, so I guess you're paying for lack of originality whether you know it or not. But rest assured, many evolutionary biologists, developmental biologists, geneticists, anthropologists, neuroscientists, and even some EP-critical psychologists and sociologists would be beside themselves listening to you... and no, not because they'd think you were a bigot. Because all of those disciplines have something important to say about our modern psychology/biology and evolutionary history, and you don't even have all of the right puzzle pieces, let alone the disciplinary expertise to fit them together.


----------

