Best quote ever!

[Jamo]

<Twig> I just had an argument with a girl I know. She was saying how it's unfair that if a guy fvcks a different girl every week, he's a legend, but if a girl fvcks just two guys in a year, she's a slut. So in response I told her that if a key opens lots of locks, then it's a master key. But if a lock is opened by lots of keys, then it's a shltty lock. That shut her up.

http://bash.org/?908184#d

 

[Ken785]

LOL. I'll use that the next time the subject comes up.

 

[Centaurion]

Found this quote, it's so true:

SergioThree: there's other fish in the sea, man, she's just a girl
Beatsfromkorea: no dude, that's bull****.
Beatsfromkorea: Think of it this way. if your precious copy of street fighter third strike broke and i told you "it's ok man, there's other games in the sea. here, play mortal kombat instead" what would you say? you'd be like, "**** that, gimme third strike."
SergioThree: ...
SergioThree: you just reached me on a level that i never thought possible

 

[Ken785]

<Twig> I just had an argument with a girl I know. She was saying how it's unfair that if a guy fvcks a different girl every week, he's a legend, but if a girl fvcks just two guys in a year, she's a slut. So in response I told her that if a key opens lots of locks, then it's a master key. But if a lock is opened by lots of keys, then it's a shltty lock. That shut her up.

http://bash.org/?908184#d

My key has a hard time opening locks... so I just polish it a lot.

 

[Veridin]

<Twig> I just had an argument with a girl I know. She was saying how it's unfair that if a guy fvcks a different girl every week, he's a legend, but if a girl fvcks just two guys in a year, she's a slut. So in response I told her that if a key opens lots of locks, then it's a master key. But if a lock is opened by lots of keys, then it's a shltty lock. That shut her up.

http://bash.org/?908184#d

That's awesome.

And it's true. The talk about "double standard" is just feministspeak. It is a different standard for two completely different categories.

Our instinct when it comes to procreation is strongly linked to evolution - of course. Now, a man can have a virtually unlimited number of children. That is why the men with a strong sex drive, a fast reaction to visual sexual stimuli, are the ones who have had the most children. With women, it is different: they can only have a small number of children in their lifetime. They are therefore strongly leaning toward quality instead of quantity when they look for a mate; they need the best set of genes, and a man who will stick around and provide for the mother and her offspring. (Which is where "romance" comes from: flowers and chocolate and all that is a test to see if the man is willing to invest. Women are "raising the cost of sex." For good reasons.)

Because the man has the stronger desire for sex, this is the woman's best bargaining chip when she is looking for a good provider and protector. Women need this kind of man; throughout history, they could never survive without him. So what happens when another woman comes along who gives away the goods for free? She is ruining the bargaining position for everyone else! Of course they will be angry as hell.

Men are also upset, because instinctively we are aware of the old adage, "the woman carries the tribe in her womb." In the old days, you could only be sure of where a woman's offspring came from, if she hadn't slept with other men before her husband. We instinctively see something wrong with a woman who sleeps around, even if we aren't sure where the feeling comes from.

Whereas, when men see a man who sleeps with a lot of women, we recognize this as a successful man, following his instinct and spreading his genes like so many before him. We all have these kind of successful men, who manage to get a lot of women, among our ancestors. Heck, why not give that guy a thumbs up and say, "You remind me of grandpa!"


(Yes, I know a lot of people know this. But it can't hurt to repeat it once in a while.)

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

In the old days, you could only be sure of where a woman's offspring came from, if she hadn't slept with other men before her husband. We instinctively see something wrong with a woman who sleeps around, even if we aren't sure where the feeling comes from.

Have you ever read Sperm Wars? Our biochemistry has actually evolved contingencies for female infidelity.

There are actually 3 types of sperm, runners, blockers and attackers. It's like genetic football. The blocking sperm form a line of defense around the ovum to deflect competing sperm, while the runners head in to fertilize the egg. The attackers are there beyond the defense to kill or disable foreign sperm cells preventing them from getting to the egg. It's really amazing. These are specialized, purpose-specific cells.

Of course the ugly truth comes from asking why these genetic adaptations would have ever evolved in order to better ensure top-shelf sperm made it to fertilization. Studies have proven sperm count increases after and before prolonged absences from a female mate. There are also dramatic increases in sperm count when the suspicion of infidelity is present for the mated male. Both of these phenomenon are triggered by hormonal precursors that are prompted from a male's environment and conditions.

Essentially, on an evolutionary scale, women historically have made breeding choices based on the best genetic potential (biological) and the best parental investment potential (provisioning) of the men they pair with. Rarely do both potentials exist in the same male, so breeding with one and pair bonding with the other becomes her methodology. This method was (and still is) so common that not only our social constructs were built to ensure a man's progeny is his own, but even our cellular biology made it necessary to evolve it's own contingency.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Essentially, on an evolutionary scale, women historically have made breeding choices based on the best genetic potential (biological) and the best parental investment potential (provisioning) of the men they pair with. Rarely do both potentials exist in the same male, so breeding with one and pair bonding with the other becomes her methodology. This method was (and still is) so common that not only our social constructs were built to ensure a man's progeny is his own, but even our cellular biology made it necessary to evolve it's own contingency.

Not so fast, boss. There has never been any evidence whatsoever that this "dual partner" theory has ever been the case in more than a minority of females.

Most accept that the human ape is a monogomous species in general, but with the ability to switch to polygamy should the need arise.

Your argument is like saying that because men are always horny means we have a methodology of fukking tons of women. Most don't, but some do. Because all of us are horny, we are capable of boning with tons of hunnies should the opportunity AND THE NEED arise. Unfortunately, for most guys, that opportunity only exists on Thai sex tours.

Women with all their advanced sperm war technology are the same way. They are capable to seducing many males and sorting the best genes, and coupling that with the best provider, but that doesn't mean it's their de facto strategy. It's always an option sure, but only an option.

Many point out the famous UK hospital study that showed that up to whatever percent (20 or so if I recall correctly) of babies were not the genetic product on the men married to the women.

That means that 80 percent of the men married to the females WERE the fathers, which is much more than some would like to believe.

Of course, believing that ALL women are ALWAYS looking for the next branch makes it good on the ego.

I'd even say that belief is a well developed buffer against dealing with reality, and having to actually get in the game and do some sorting and qualifying.

But back to the point made by the OP:

Brilliant quote. I shall remember it and use it whenever the need arises.

Thanks.

 

[Nygard]

"I've never ****ed with a 10. But on one night, I ****ed five 2's! " - George Carlin

 

[DJCorleone]

Pure genius.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

22 y/o : I'm sorry, but I don't date anybody over 30

Hugh Hefner: me neither