Sex outside of marriage?

[gib]

Wanna hear my theory? No? Well, I'll tell it anyway:

Men have the reputation for being promiscuous while women have the reputation for being monogomous. Our evolutionary rolls are typically brought in to explain this. It is said that men want to spread their seed and so they want to fuck as many women as they can, while women want a committed exclusive relationship because they need the father of their offspring to stick around and help with the child rearing and defend the family against enemies/predators.

While I agree with this for the most part, I think another look at these evolutionary rolls reveals that women should be just as promiscuous as men. Why would women need to be monogomous for their mate to stick around and help with child rearing and defending the family? What they would actually need is for the man himself to be monogomous. If the man buggers off and starts fucking other women, then they're in trouble. But if she can get him to settle down and commit to the family, and only this one family, she has a better chance of nurturing her offspring towards success. Meanwhile, it makes no difference to her if her second or third or fourth child comes from a different mate. Hell, if she can get the whole lot of them to be committed to her and their respective offspring, then she'll amass a whole army of strong capable men to protect and provide for her and her children.

But of course, she can't convince these men to be monogomous unless she herself acts according to her own prescription. Otherwise, she's just a hypocrit. And so, I believe that women end up earning the reputation as the monogomous ones only because they in fact do try to be monogomous in an attempt to quell their conscience, a conscience which urges them to preach the morality of monogomy to their mates.

[Calrid]

Wanna hear my theory? No? Well, I'll tell it anyway:

Men have the reputation for being promiscuous while women have the reputation for being monogomous. Our evolutionary rolls are typically brought in to explain this. It is said that men want to spread their seed and so they want to fuck as many women as they can, while women want a committed exclusive relationship because they need the father of their offspring to stick around and help with the child rearing and defend the family against enemies/predators.

While I agree with this for the most part, I think another look at these evolutionary rolls reveals that women should be just as promiscuous as men. Why would women need to be monogomous for their mate to stick around and help with child rearing and defending the family? What they would actually need is for the man himself to be monogomous. If the man buggers off and starts fucking other women, then they're in trouble. But if she can get him to settle down and commit to the family, and only this one family, she has a better chance of nurturing her offspring towards success. Meanwhile, it makes no difference to her if her second or third or fourth child comes from a different mate. Hell, if she can get the whole lot of them to be committed to her and their respective offspring, then she'll amass a whole army of strong capable men to protect and provide for her and her children.

But of course, she can't convince these men to be monogomous unless she herself acts according to her own prescription. Otherwise, she's just a hypocrit. And so, I believe that women end up earning the reputation as the monogomous ones only because they in fact do try to be monogomous in an attempt to quell their conscience, a conscience which urges them to preach the morality of monogomy to their mates.

QFT.

Society has a powerful influence on us.

That said I don't think fornication is wrong, but I do think if you're shagging your best friends girl it's quite immoral.

[Stoic Guardian]

Stoic, I think you should defend against the distinction being made here between friendly (caring) feelings and romantic (sexual) ones.

I think I should too.

[joekoba]

Wanna hear my theory? No? Well, I'll tell it anyway:

Men have the reputation for being promiscuous while women have the reputation for being monogomous. Our evolutionary rolls are typically brought in to explain this. It is said that men want to spread their seed and so they want to fuck as many women as they can, while women want a committed exclusive relationship because they need the father of their offspring to stick around and help with the child rearing and defend the family against enemies/predators.

While I agree with this for the most part, I think another look at these evolutionary rolls reveals that women should be just as promiscuous as men. Why would women need to be monogomous for their mate to stick around and help with child rearing and defending the family? What they would actually need is for the man himself to be monogomous. If the man buggers off and starts fucking other women, then they're in trouble. But if she can get him to settle down and commit to the family, and only this one family, she has a better chance of nurturing her offspring towards success. Meanwhile, it makes no difference to her if her second or third or fourth child comes from a different mate. Hell, if she can get the whole lot of them to be committed to her and their respective offspring, then she'll amass a whole army of strong capable men to protect and provide for her and her children.

But of course, she can't convince these men to be monogomous unless she herself acts according to her own prescription. Otherwise, she's just a hypocrit. And so, I believe that women end up earning the reputation as the monogomous ones only because they in fact do try to be monogomous in an attempt to quell their conscience, a conscience which urges them to preach the morality of monogomy to their mates.

I Agree with all you've said here

[joekoba]

Wanna hear my theory? No? Well, I'll tell it anyway:

Men have the reputation for being promiscuous while women have the reputation for being monogomous. Our evolutionary rolls are typically brought in to explain this. It is said that men want to spread their seed and so they want to fuck as many women as they can, while women want a committed exclusive relationship because they need the father of their offspring to stick around and help with the child rearing and defend the family against enemies/predators.

While I agree with this for the most part, I think another look at these evolutionary rolls reveals that women should be just as promiscuous as men. Why would women need to be monogomous for their mate to stick around and help with child rearing and defending the family? What they would actually need is for the man himself to be monogomous. If the man buggers off and starts fucking other women, then they're in trouble. But if she can get him to settle down and commit to the family, and only this one family, she has a better chance of nurturing her offspring towards success. Meanwhile, it makes no difference to her if her second or third or fourth child comes from a different mate. Hell, if she can get the whole lot of them to be committed to her and their respective offspring, then she'll amass a whole army of strong capable men to protect and provide for her and her children.

But of course, she can't convince these men to be monogomous unless she herself acts according to her own prescription. Otherwise, she's just a hypocrit. And so, I believe that women end up earning the reputation as the monogomous ones only because they in fact do try to be monogomous in an attempt to quell their conscience, a conscience which urges them to preach the morality of monogomy to their mates.

QFT.

Society has a powerful influence on us.

That said I don't think fornication is wrong, but I do think if you're shagging your best friends girl it's quite immoral.

Immoral? no, just plain fun id imagine

[Smears]

That's sad if that's what you think.

I think you can have it both ways. Like some girls I'm friends with. Some of the fatter and uglier girls I went to college with for instance. Smart, funny, pleasant in conversation, sometimes even bordering on intellectually stimulating. So I get to enjoy what it's like to be best friends w/ not just one woman, but several. I get all that good stuff.

But then when I'm ready for the poontang, I'm looking for something from the mid 80s, under 5'7, under 140lbs with good shiny hair, smooth skin, and firmness all over except the parts that are supposed to be squishy. She should also have some stamina, and the confidence with her body to act like an outright freak, without having to sacrifice her self esteem.

Also, at the end of the day, if you can keep a couple strung along for conversations, and a couple of hot ones for having sex with, then you literaly get to live in a world of estrogen without any real obligation to any of them.

[FilmSnob]

Also, at the end of the day, if you can keep a couple strung along for conversations, and a couple of hot ones for having sex with, then you literaly get to live in a world of estrogen without any real obligation to any of them.

Why can't one buy people beers over the net?

[Smears]

Because there's no justice in the world.

[Stoic Guardian]

If people aren't looking for romance that's up to their own discretion.

That doesn't mean one should confuse romance with indulging in your libido.

People can choose to simply have those they are friends with and people they have sex with , but they shouldn't dismiss romance as just a colorful world for trying to find sex partners.

[Smears]

So for there to be true romance, my libido cannot be satisfied?

[Stoic Guardian]

So for there to be true romance, my libido cannot be satisfied?

Can libido be satisfied? I'd say it can only be temporarly abated. Until it ceases with old age (though viagra and other drugs interfere with that process).

But of course, people can have very good sex with those they love, all I said is that sex isn't the only thing it entails.

[Calrid]

Wanna hear my theory? No? Well, I'll tell it anyway:

Men have the reputation for being promiscuous while women have the reputation for being monogomous. Our evolutionary rolls are typically brought in to explain this. It is said that men want to spread their seed and so they want to fuck as many women as they can, while women want a committed exclusive relationship because they need the father of their offspring to stick around and help with the child rearing and defend the family against enemies/predators.

While I agree with this for the most part, I think another look at these evolutionary rolls reveals that women should be just as promiscuous as men. Why would women need to be monogomous for their mate to stick around and help with child rearing and defending the family? What they would actually need is for the man himself to be monogomous. If the man buggers off and starts fucking other women, then they're in trouble. But if she can get him to settle down and commit to the family, and only this one family, she has a better chance of nurturing her offspring towards success. Meanwhile, it makes no difference to her if her second or third or fourth child comes from a different mate. Hell, if she can get the whole lot of them to be committed to her and their respective offspring, then she'll amass a whole army of strong capable men to protect and provide for her and her children.

But of course, she can't convince these men to be monogomous unless she herself acts according to her own prescription. Otherwise, she's just a hypocrit. And so, I believe that women end up earning the reputation as the monogomous ones only because they in fact do try to be monogomous in an attempt to quell their conscience, a conscience which urges them to preach the morality of monogomy to their mates.

QFT.

Society has a powerful influence on us.

That said I don't think fornication is wrong, but I do think if you're shagging your best friends girl it's quite immoral.

Immoral? no, just plain fun id imagine

Until he finds out, then in a fit of jealous rage, shoots both you and his girlfriend mid coitus and then burns your corpses and makes bread out of the ashes, with jam and butter obviously. Think on.

[joekoba]

If people aren't looking for romance that's up to their own discretion.

That doesn't mean one should confuse romance with indulging in your libido.

People can choose to simply have those they are friends with and people they have sex with , but they shouldn't dismiss romance as just a colorful world for trying to find sex partners.

Friends with girls? Ha! I think Smears has it right minus the girls that are just friends thing. Let's be honest Smears those girls that are your friends are back up fucks in case of a dry spell. Either that or those ugly girls/fat really are brilliant enough conversationalists to keep your attention so much so that you prefer them over dudes intellect. Let's end the whole girls and guys can just be friends horseshit right here and now. YEs girls and guys say they are friends with someone of the opp sex, but what do they really mean? A guy who has a friend who is a girl either wants to fuck her, doesn't want to fuck her and wants his emotional needs met (gay), is gay, she is a brilliant conversationalist/better intellect than his guy friends(if he has any). From the girls point of view...who the fuck knows girls, chime in. My best guess is that they are in a way back up fucks as well as one option, or maybe some sort of validation of her social worth? Also women with a guy friend far outweighs a guy having a girl as just a friend. Guys can get shit done and often provide leadership in life, while women sob and whine about shit.

[joekoba]

Society has a powerful influence on us.

That said I don't think fornication is wrong, but I do think if you're shagging your best friends girl it's quite immoral.
Immoral? no, just plain fun id imagine

Until he finds out, then in a fit of jealous rage, shoots both you and his girlfriend mid coitus and then burns your corpses and makes bread out of the ashes, with jam and butter obviously. Think on.

ITs a risk worth taking!

[joekoba]

If people aren't looking for romance that's up to their own discretion.

That doesn't mean one should confuse romance with indulging in your libido.

People can choose to simply have those they are friends with and people they have sex with , but they shouldn't dismiss romance as just a colorful world for trying to find sex partners.

The whole friends thing is overrated as is "romance" whatever fuck that means. I don't dismiss romance for being a colorful word for fucking, i see it as non-meaningful word. When a guy gives his girl flowers, do you think he thinks he's romancing her in a non-sexual way? Or does he want pussy?

[Calrid]

Society has a powerful influence on us.

That said I don't think fornication is wrong, but I do think if you're shagging your best friends girl it's quite immoral.
Immoral? no, just plain fun id imagine

Until he finds out, then in a fit of jealous rage, shoots both you and his girlfriend mid coitus and then burns your corpses and makes bread out of the ashes, with jam and butter obviously. Think on.

ITs a risk worth taking!

[joekoba]

Society has a powerful influence on us.

That said I don't think fornication is wrong, but I do think if you're shagging your best friends girl it's quite immoral.
Immoral? no, just plain fun id imagine

Until he finds out, then in a fit of jealous rage, shoots both you and his girlfriend mid coitus and then burns your corpses and makes bread out of the ashes, with jam and butter obviously. Think on.

ITs a risk worth taking!

[Stoic Guardian]

Well at least I see the type of person I'm talking to now.

[Smears]

If people aren't looking for romance that's up to their own discretion.

That doesn't mean one should confuse romance with indulging in your libido.

People can choose to simply have those they are friends with and people they have sex with , but they shouldn't dismiss romance as just a colorful world for trying to find sex partners.

Friends with girls? Ha! I think Smears has it right minus the girls that are just friends thing. Let's be honest Smears those girls that are your friends are back up fucks in case of a dry spell. Either that or those ugly girls/fat really are brilliant enough conversationalists to keep your attention so much so that you prefer them over dudes intellect. Let's end the whole girls and guys can just be friends horseshit right here and now. YEs girls and guys say they are friends with someone of the opp sex, but what do they really mean? A guy who has a friend who is a girl either wants to fuck her, doesn't want to fuck her and wants his emotional needs met (gay), is gay, she is a brilliant conversationalist/better intellect than his guy friends(if he has any). From the girls point of view...who the fuck knows girls, chime in. My best guess is that they are in a way back up fucks as well as one option, or maybe some sort of validation of her social worth? Also women with a guy friend far outweighs a guy having a girl as just a friend. Guys can get shit done and often provide leadership in life, while women sob and whine about shit.

Nah man I'm for real. I actually know some really smart girls. Two of the ones I'm "just friends" with were philosophy majors, one is now works in some fancy bank building, and the other is a funeral director. Another girl I know is a physical therapist, and makes bank, but studied philosophy as a second major in undergrad. They're pretty good people to talk to. I also am friends with a girl who studied business, and now owns like 20 houses and rents them all out w/ her little LLC type company with no employees other than herself. She's busy man and gets shit done. I actually know a good number of smart girls. I'm still friends with two of my female professors and I go and eat lunch with them and sit in on lectures they give at conferences and shit. Those bitches have PhDs in philosophy. How can that not be truly interesting? There's so many girls that just don't do anything with themselves and I'm just not cool w/ that unless they got a banging body and are dtf.

Now to be fair, I would never fuck one of those professors, or the funeral director, but the others I totally would. I think one of them is working on me now she keeps inviting me over, then getting drunk and passing out. It's sad that she's so good at business but so bad as handling her emotions and getting what she wants from a dude. You gotta make em work for it a little.

I do have 2 girls that are backups, but only one is really available on a regular right now cause she got rid of her b/f. The other one is pretending to love someone right now, so it'll probably be months, maybe a year before that one picks back up. I guess it's just the idea of getting a variety of ass on a constant basis that keeps me going. You might call it being gay or emotionally needy or whatever to just go hang w/ a bitch, but man it's all part of the game. inevitably you'll meet bitches that you DO want to fuck by hanging out and being nice to the other ones. Plus they'll already trust you. Man sometimes I feel like a terrible person. But I always end up getting distracted from those thoughts be some kind of pleasure. I dunno. I dunno.

[tentative]

Sex outside of marraige? It seems to me that if you're out 'shopping ' around, the marraige was over or you wouldn't be out looking. So from my perspective, there is no sex 'outside' of marraige. Of course this assumes that at some point marraige included intimacy, which hasn't been discussed at all in this thread. Nor has vulnerability which is the core of intimacy. All the talk has been about fucking, which is just using someone's body to masturbate.

[joekoba]

To Stoic- And what person might that be?

Fair enough Smears, and thanks for sharing the details. You're lucky to have found some of those rare types of women to have good conversation with, however that sexual element for some of them is still present (as you mention for those that aren't proff. and funeral director. Could you call colleagues perhaps?).Also, i bet if any one of them repulsed you physically truly you would not see them no matter their intellect, unless you had to see them otherwise for work. Unless im way off base there... I was also gonna mention previously a point you brought up about having girls that are friends in order to fuck them later after bringing their guard down a little and explore their insecurities to get them comfortable enough to fuck, which i respect. That one drinking girl you mention is ready to go, and I'm pretty sure one would choose to "compromise" the friendship by doing the deed if it came down to it. That sucks that you feel like a terrible person for doing your thing, but in all honesty I think you have it right for the most part when it comes to the opp. sex.

To Tentative- What is intimacy? IF someone fucked your S.O. in theory, but there was no intimacy would that make you feel better or worse? Being vulnerable could very easily lead to sex without intimacy, one night stands? And i have to disagree with your last point. Sex is for procreation and not for romantic bullshit, although we like to dress it up as intimate. Intimate for me is a penis going into a vagina. Agree, disagree? And that's a reach for me because intimacy is really just made up mental masturbation coating for fucking. Intimacy is more of a woman thing, guys just wanna hit it.

[MagsJ]

If a person wants to 'play' outside of marriage (or their relationship) then they should end it to persue the other... cheaters think of getting their oats first and their partners feelings after.

[tentative]

joekoba,

To Tentative- What is intimacy? IF someone fucked your S.O. in theory, but there was no intimacy would that make you feel better or worse? Being vulnerable could very easily lead to sex without intimacy, one night stands? And i have to disagree with your last point. Sex is for procreation and not for romantic bullshit, although we like to dress it up as intimate. Intimate for me is a penis going into a vagina. Agree, disagree? And that's a reach for me because intimacy is really just made up mental masturbation coating for fucking. Intimacy is more of a woman thing, guys just wanna hit it.

First, there wouldn't be a significant other if all its about is fucking. You don't have to marry to get laid. Marraige is a committment to one another. If it isn't reciprocal, there is no marraige. Love making is the consequence of intimacy, not the other way around. If your definition of intimacy is simply sticking it in, then you've missed my point. What you call intimacy is what I already said. You use another persons body to masturbate. Thats just fucking, and has nothing to do with love making.

[Calrid]

If a person wants to 'play' outside of marriage (or their relationship) then they should end it to persue the other... cheaters think of getting their oats first and their partners feelings after.

I agree. However I've never been in a situation where I could play outside of a relationship, so my accord is probably hollow. Would I, Gord knows. Ask me when a girl I know, knows full well I'm in a relationship and throws herself on me anyway. I guess I either know moral people, or I am not Brad Pitt or such, I am happy either way.

I like to say I would never cheat on a girl but then I've never been tempted, how much is that worth? It's like saying you could always kill any person, without ever having killed...

[joekoba]

joekoba,

To Tentative- What is intimacy? IF someone fucked your S.O. in theory, but there was no intimacy would that make you feel better or worse? Being vulnerable could very easily lead to sex without intimacy, one night stands? And i have to disagree with your last point. Sex is for procreation and not for romantic bullshit, although we like to dress it up as intimate. Intimate for me is a penis going into a vagina. Agree, disagree? And that's a reach for me because intimacy is really just made up mental masturbation coating for fucking. Intimacy is more of a woman thing, guys just wanna hit it.

First, there wouldn't be a significant other if all its about is fucking. You don't have to marry to get laid. Marraige is a committment to one another. If it isn't reciprocal, there is no marraige. Love making is the consequence of intimacy, not the other way around. If your definition of intimacy is simply sticking it in, then you've missed my point. What you call intimacy is what I already said. You use another persons body to masturbate. Thats just fucking, and has nothing to do with love making.

there can be marriage without feelings being reciprocal, why do you think 1 of 2 marriages end in divorce in the US? Was it because they believed in their marital vows? For a guy marriage happens in large part because of the guarantee fucking involved, you can dress it up as intimacy but that's what it boils down to, believe it or not. So what is intimacy to you?