Good article in Slate about women cheating

jophil28

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
5,216
Reaction score
277
Location
Gold Coast. Aust.
Colossus said:
This whole "father as many children as possible" argument has the cognitive depth of a high school science project. Stop comparing people to animals, for God's sake. I dont care if we are 97% genetically similar to an ape. Think of that 3% like 3 degrees difference in turing the rudder on a ship. In the short term, it doesnt look like much of a difference. But over time, 3% can mean hundreds, if not thousands of miles difference in the course of the ship.
QUOTE]

Great arugment Colossus. That old popular imperative about men spreading their seed does sound very " high school" and resonates like psycho, socio, babble from 1958.
Comparing our genetic similarities with apes has been popular( thanks Darwin et al) but misguided. IT is our differences which have been the catalyst to ALL of our growth as homo sapiens.
I cannot recall EVER seeing a three storey medical center or a 6 lane highway built by apes .
 

Victory Unlimited

Master Don Juan
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Messages
1,360
Reaction score
323
Location
On the Frontlines
jophil28 said:
Colossus said:
This whole "father as many children as possible" argument has the cognitive depth of a high school science project. Stop comparing people to animals, for God's sake. I dont care if we are 97% genetically similar to an ape. Think of that 3% like 3 degrees difference in turing the rudder on a ship. In the short term, it doesnt look like much of a difference. But over time, 3% can mean hundreds, if not thousands of miles difference in the course of the ship.
QUOTE]

Great arugment Colossus. That old popular imperative about men spreading their seed does sound very " high school" and resonates like psycho, socio, babble from 1958.
Comparing our genetic similarities with apes has been popular( thanks Darwin et al) but misguided. IT is our differences which have been the catalyst to ALL of our growth as homo sapiens.
I cannot recall EVER seeing a three storey medical center or a 6 lane highway built by apes .

Great Posts COLOSSUS and JOPHIL.

However, JOPHIL...I must respectfully disagree with you on this particular quote of yours:

"I cannot recall EVER seeing a three storey medical center or a 6 lane highway built by apes."

You are WRONG, my friend. Because "I" sure have seen it...and MORE than once. And the proof is in THIS motherfukking historical, audio visual record!!!


MONKEY-LOVERS OF THE WORLD--------UNITE!!!! :crackup:
 

jophil28

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
5,216
Reaction score
277
Location
Gold Coast. Aust.
ketostix said:
I think one reason is women have more power in choosing who they mate with, and they are actually poor at choosing the guy with the best genes.
THis is a great point. Up until women were "liberated" in the 1960's ( I am never sure from whom or what ) they functioned quite differently to women today. Women of my mother's generation did not feel "entitled" and there was NO social force at work brainwashing them to be haters of men, and so they did not hate and treat men as adversaries. And those women were faithful - why ? because society (and their parents) told them to be faithful.
The social forces at work during that time ( pre-WW2 )was more powerful that her need to "mate with the best genes".and so she complied.
Feminism has destroyed this force largely and replaced it with the mantra "You call have it all girl" This delivered the belief that a woman is now FREE to choose her own destiny and her own behavior.
If we observe the behaviors of women today who are under 40 you can judge the result for yourself.
 

jophil28

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
5,216
Reaction score
277
Location
Gold Coast. Aust.
Victory Unlimited said:
jophil28 said:
You are WRONG, my friend. Because "I" sure have seen it...and MORE than once. And the proof is in THIS motherfukking historical, audio visual record!!!


MONKEY-LOVERS OF THE WORLD--------UNITE!!!! :crackup:
Ha ha ,you are a funny guy, man..
However, I bet that you don't want your sister to marry one ?
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2006
Messages
3,958
Reaction score
36
More Matrix biological bullshyt to excuse ill behavior and misconduct - they are pushing an agenda here boys!!!

And RT, I stop reading your post when you said "selfish gene" - WTF!!!!!!! Is there anything that we are responsible for due to our own decisions and not some biological genetic trait?

There is no right or wrong because it is not our fault due to personal reasons. but due to our genetics - so we have no blame!! :rolleyes:

They said the same shyt about alcoholics - "It isn't their fault, they have a disease" Sane shyt with fat people, same shyt with drug addicts, sex addicts, criminals, homosexuals, hyperactivity, etc... I'm waiting for these matrix bastards to say being a hor is based on genetics and not her actions!! Oh wait, Rollo already believes that!!

Is it no wonder that everybody is on drugs/medication if everything is labeled a "disease" -- THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT!!! They are controlling your mind and damaging it with their propaganda and drugs!! Wake up!!!!

It is not morals that are being pushed in our society - it is unmorality!! Guess why?

Darwin zealots on here should be banned for promoting this garbage religion!!!
 
Last edited:

Aenigma

Senior Don Juan
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
331
Reaction score
25
Rollo Tomassi said:

Amen, Rollo! Fidelity and monogamy are nothing but pre-programmed biological beavior designed to spread genetic material. To assume that this particular approach to reproduction is more "moral" is absurb and it has absolutely no basis in reality. It is the product of centuries of beta-male induced slave morality, nothing more.
 

Colossus

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
3,505
Reaction score
547
Rollo Tomassi said:
If a man marries a single mother of 3 children by 2 different fathers and shares the parental investment for progeny that aren't his does this count as monogamy or her "cheating"?
Neither. Cuckoldry (sp?) is an unnatural behavior for both man and beast.



ROLLO TOMASSI said:
Heheh,..the more you throw rocks at the full moon to make it go away the bigger and brighter it shines.

All kidding aside though, I realize that there is a definite faction of SoSuave moralist members here who see our Selfish Gene as some kind of biological flaw that presents a moral challenge to rise above. As self-righteously satisfying as it would be to join all that I can't. Not because I'm valueless or unethical or I don't think in absolute terms by nature, but because I can accept my own flawed human-ness. And I'm not implying that anyone else here can't see this, but I think what offends the SS moralists is this idea that biology forgives behavior. As if a man or woman should be excused from the consequences of their actions - this is what pisses off the moralists - that a cheater should get away with their crimes because, biologically, they're blameless.

Let me emphatically say right now, they're NOT. There are and should be consequences for indiscretions as well as appreciation and reward (reinforcement) for virtues. But all this doesn't negate any of the root, biological, evolutionary motivators that prompt the behavior. In fact all the moral absolutes that would make us love to cast the first stone are EXACTLY the results of our own biological propensities. It's not an excuse for anti-social behaviors - it is the motivator for them.
I wouldnt label myself a moralist, but I will agree that the 'biology excuses behavior' sentiment is perpetually annoying.

BUT, and this is where we will probably always disagree, I dont accept the above bold statement with entirety.

Biological imperatives do motivate much of our behavior, but I refuse to believe that they are the principal catalyst of anti-social behaviors. Sometimes, yes...but not always. Maybe Im old school, maybe my values are too Judeo-Christian for some people, but I do believe there is depravity, carnality, and selfish corruption deep in some people's hearts and minds that causes them to act out in such ways.

Now I am certainly not labeling all cheaters with these terms...good people can make selfish mistakes. Many of us here have been both the cheated and the cheater. Ultimately this discussion will come down to personal values, but it is good to engage disagreements at times.
 

iqqi

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
Messages
5,136
Reaction score
82
Location
Beyond your peripheral vision
I don't think the "sosuave moralists", lol at that label by the way, are upset that biology excuses bad choices. I think that many others have already said it right. We don't make our choices based on biology and genes, so much as we do by reasoning. Bad and and good choices are reasoned out. When we make a choice, good or bad, it defines our character. It is what it is.

It ain't the genes.
 

Colossus

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
3,505
Reaction score
547
azanon said:
Do you mean figuratively; we're not animals? I assure you, literally, we are most definitely animals. We are in Kingdom Animalia.
Thank you for that second-grade science pearl, professor. Yes I mean that literally. We are not animals. If you want to argue in terms of taxonomic classification, sure. But regardless of textbook distictions, there is man, and there is beast.



azanon said:
Humans are way too intelligent to be put in definiate categories, such as being monogamous. Not just intelligent, but we have the mental ability and capacity for free will and decision. If I choose to mate with more than one female, I assure you my actions prove I'm not monogamous. These terms are determined by observing behaviors. Your opinion on this must become null and void when one's actions prove otherwise.
Wrong. My opinion on this does not become null and void in lieu of unfaithful behavior; because as you said, we all have a choice. I believe that humans were "built" for monogamy, and for most stable and well-adjusted people that is their natural tendency. I dont mean that in absolute categorical terms. I think a lot of posters here see an act of infidelity by any individual (especially a woman) as a fortification to a growing body of evidence that supports their belief that we are all gratuitous polygamists at heart; but it's a matter perspective.

My problem is when acts of infidelity are either excused or explained purely in terms of biology.
 

KarmaSutra

Banned
Joined
Oct 13, 2005
Messages
4,821
Reaction score
142
Age
51
Location
Padron Reserve maduro in hand while finishing my b
Colossus said:
Thank you for that second-grade science pearl, professor. Yes I mean that literally. We are not animals. If you want to argue in terms of taxonomic classification, sure. But regardless of textbook distictions, there is man, and there is beast.
The Professor makes a valid point. Even though it contradicts yours doesn't negate it's truth.


Wrong. My opinion on this does not become null and void in lieu of unfaithful behavior; because as you said, we all have a choice. I believe that humans were "built" for monogamy, and for most stable and well-adjusted people that is their natural tendency. I dont mean that in absolute categorical terms. I think a lot of posters here see an act of infidelity by any individual (especially a woman) as a fortification to a growing body of evidence that supports their belief that we are all gratuitous polygamists at heart; but it's a matter perspective.

My problem is when acts of infidelity are either excused or explained purely in terms of biology.
Humans were not built for monogamy. Not in any way, shape or curve. Our deepest biological need is to propogate this Earth with our seed. Showering our seed on as many 'bushes" as we can. This is what our ancestors from way back have done and what our overanalyzed Deoxirobonucleic Acid has ingrained since our Mommies let guys dump a load in them whether they are our biological ones or not.

Do yourself a favor and read The Selfish Gene and The Red Queen.

They'll change your tune.
 

Colossus

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
3,505
Reaction score
547
Last Man Standing said:
Colossus, have you read my The Natural Order Of Things thread? http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=50480
Elegant work, LMS. Outstanding. To me, that is the bedrock of a true DJ. It is not theory, it is not some concept derived purley from anecdotes, it is what it is---the natural order.

This thread has kind of gotten off-track, but I quoted a few key passages from your post that I feel are central to success and continuity as a true DJ.

The mistake many DJ's make is that you pursue a woman for the purpose of what she can do to satisfy your temporary physical sexual lusts and carnal desires, and you neglect to qualify her on the basis of whether she would complement your nature as a man. If you pursue her as a woman and act according to your nature as a man, then the sexual attraction and sex act will be inevitable and it will naturally takes it's course in time, as nature intended! If you pursue a woman for the sake of satisfying your temporary desires, then expect a temporary romantic outcome; however, if you are seeking a long term relationship or marriage, then you must qualify your mate based on her complementary feminine nature being aligned with your masculine character, if stability and permanency is what you seek!
I prefer to approach women who have a complete understanding of their complementary nature and thus know their role as a female in the relationship, as oppose to approaching those women who have rejected this natural balance (wh@res), and who have gone astray of their natural sexuality. My philosophy on sexuality in the personal relationships that I nurture is simply, “I’ll be the man and you be the woman”. When I approach and sustain a relationship with the kind of woman who obeys her true nature, this is where my strength as a man is exhibited.
I know LMS catches a lot flak here, especially for his gratuitous use of punctuation and the word "hor", but this is, IMO, one of the more sterling pieces of literature on this site. Props to you, sir.
 

Colossus

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
3,505
Reaction score
547
KarmaSutra said:
The Professor makes a valid point. Even though it contradicts yours doesn't negate it's truth.




Humans were not built for monogamy. Not in any way, shape or curve. Our deepest biological need is to propogate this Earth with our seed. Showering our seed on as many 'bushes" as we can. This is what our ancestors from way back have done and what our overanalyzed Deoxirobonucleic Acid has ingrained since our Mommies let guys dump a load in them whether they are our biological ones or not.

Do yourself a favor and read The Selfish Gene and The Red Queen.

They'll change your tune.
Karma, I repsect you as a DJ brother, but this is one area in which we decidedly differ. I would never mitigate the impetus to procreate, after all we are still here, but I firmly believe that human behavior does go beyond biological need. I will emphatically say that biological needs are a major influential factor, but not in exclusivity. That is what separates us from animals. Physiological similarities aside, there is, and will always be, an immutable existential distinction between human beings and all other creatures.
 

vorbis

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
2
Location
Boston
as JoeKerr mentioned, the "we are wired to spread our seed" theory is simply not borne out in real life.

95% of guys I know end up in ltrs on a consistent basis. If they break up with a girl they might have a few months of singledom and then they'll shack up with someone else. A lot of these guys have little problems getting women and from talking to them certainly don't feel worried about being alone (we're all mid to late twenties). They simply CHOOSE to be enter a ltr.

Absolute monogamy would be something I'd question though. I've seen a few guys cheat on their girlfriends when out of town. The "if its a different zip code, it doesn't matter" is certainly alive.

This once off cheating is not biology related, its variety. Lets be honest, shagging the same girl year after year will become a routine. As in a steak would look very tempting after 2 years of eating chicken. For me there is no bioligical element to cheating. Its primarily for entertainment purposes.
 

bigjohnson

Master Don Juan
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
2,441
Reaction score
37
vorbis said:
This once off cheating is not biology related, its variety. .... For me there is no bioligical element to cheating. Its primarily for entertainment purposes.
The fact that it's entertaining doesn't mean it serves no biological purpose. In fact if sex was painful or eating was unpleasant we wouldn't be a very viable species. I don't subscribe to the 'all men spread their seed as much as they can" school but for different reasons.

I assume that overall monogamy has proven to be the soundest course for successful procreation. I also assume there are probably biological exceptions that explain the proclivity to cheat in some circumstances. For instance maybe (just brainstorming here) in a situation where your tribe is pretty much isolated it's advantageous to collect genetic material that wanders in or to do what you can to move your genes into distant seldom accessed gene pools?

Who knows.

More important is how we as people act on the urges biology blesses us with.
 

jophil28

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
5,216
Reaction score
277
Location
Gold Coast. Aust.
Colossus said:
Physiological similarities aside, there is, and will always be, an immutable existential distinction between human beings and all other creatures.
And the differences are myriad , and these include our CHOICE to mate or have sex, or not, with a particular female.This choice does not operate in animals.
 

Rollo Tomassi

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
5,309
Reaction score
340
Age
56
Location
Nevada
Women living in close proximity with other women (a college dorm for instance) will begin to synchronize their ovulatory cycles. Their menstrual cycles, however offset from when they lived independent of one another, gradually become nearly identical in their times of optimal fertilization potential. This is a clinically provable phenomenon, in fact you don't even need a study for it, just ask a few female roommates. The science behind it are odorless pheromones that only human females have receptor sites for.

Now the question is, if monogamy is the "natural" order, why evolve gender specific pheromones and receptors to ensure maximum potential of simultaneous fertilization amongst a female grouping?
 

Rollo Tomassi

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
5,309
Reaction score
340
Age
56
Location
Nevada
Last Man Standing said:
And RT, I stop reading your post when you said "selfish gene" - WTF!!!!!!! Is there anything that we are responsible for due to our own decisions and not some biological genetic trait?
Since home-schoolers such as yourself weren't encouraged to think any more critically than to skim over paragraphs for terms or phrases they were told were offensive, I'll quote myself here in the interests of catching you up with the rest of the class:

Rollo Tomassi said:
As if a man or woman should be excused from the consequences of their actions - this is what pisses off the moralists - that a cheater should get away with their crimes because, biologically, they're blameless.

Let me emphatically say right now, they're NOT. There are and should be consequences for indiscretions as well as appreciation and reward (reinforcement) for virtues. But all this doesn't negate any of the root, biological, evolutionary motivators that prompt the behavior. In fact all the moral absolutes that would make us love to cast the first stone are EXACTLY the results of our own biological propensities. It's not an excuse for anti-social behaviors - it is the motivator for them.
Now then,..

Rollo Tomassi said:
If a man marries a single mother of 3 children by 2 different fathers and shares the parental investment for progeny that aren't his does this count as monogamy or her "cheating"?
Colossus said:
Neither. Cuckoldry (sp?) is an unnatural behavior for both man and beast.
You'd be surprised to find then that cuckoldry is a very common mating methodology in animals - birds in particular because of the relatively small clutch of progeny and the long gestation time. With a few notable exceptions, it's males that provide warmth for eggs that were never sired by him. Cuckoldry is also common amongst higher order animals as well, though we don't call it such. Bonobos and great apes live in communal groupings where cuckoldry is rampant. In fact alpha gorillas have the tendency to kill the young of females who've bred with other males before he'll mate with her as one of his "harem".

Where we run into problems is when we decide what is or isn't "natural" behavior. Masturbation is a "natural" unlearned behavior, yet we think of it as deviant. The latent cause for this may be because it's self-pleasuring, and defeats a productive purpose, but the social convention of using shame for it is what we tend to focus on. Still, you cannot deny the behavior as innate.

Sexual methodologies will always be a combination of nature vs. nurture, unlearned, innate, biological behaviors vs. modeled and taught, socially acquired behaviors. Cuckoldry is still a reality regardless of the origins of the behavior. It's a methodology that has been a proven boon genetically (assuming the one employing it doesn't get found out) for women for centuries. I've covered this topic several times in past posts; it has a social stigma because it blatantly favors a woman's genetic imperative above a man's. We may think of this as unjust or despicable (and rightly so), but it is only one of hundreds of social conventions socially established that favor a woman's genetic priorities. Marriage, monogamy, pair-bonded sexual relations, are feminine methodologies used to ensure her long term security and parental investment requirements. Thus, these methodologies become accepted social conventions - they are the 'good' behaviors. Society as a whole standardizes these conventions and the frame of ALL gender relations is framed in the feminine to the point of it being taken for granted and anyone attempting to peer into the latent function of these conventions is ostracized - and often for just having asked the question.

For some, just turning the TV on is enough that it works, but ask HOW or WHY it works and people shrug their shoulders or say "who cares?" Cuckoldry is complicated because by nature it's had to be a covert breeding methodology. My beef with the original article is that it presumes marriage (a feminine social construct) is the only arena for cuckoldry. Modern convenience and changing social norms make cuckoldry not only easily available, but now, socially acceptable. As I've stated in may Schedules of Mating post:
For this dynamic and the practicality of enjoying the best of both genetic worlds, women find it necessary to 'cheat'. This cheating can be done proactively or reactively.

In the reactive model, a woman who has already paired with her long term partner choice, engages in an extramarital or pairing, sexual intercourse with a short term partner (i.e. the classic cheating wife or girlfriend). That's not to say this short term opportunity cannot develop into a 2nd, long term mate, but the action itself is a method for securing better genetic stock (by her perception) than the committed male provider is capable of supplying.

Proactive cheating is the single Mommy dillema. This form of 'cheating' relies on the woman breeding with a Good Genes male, bearing his children and then abandoning him, or having him abandon her, (again through invented social conventions) in order to find a Good Dad male to provide for her and the children of her Good Genes partner to ensure their security. The feminine facilitates this through invented social mores that positively affirm a man for "stepping up to the plate" and helping the "poor woman victimized by the villainous ex" share in a parental investment that was never his burden.

I want to stress again that (most) women do not have some consciously recognized, master plan to enact this cycle and deliberately trap men into it. Rather the motivations for this behavior and the accompanying rationales invented to justify it are an unconscious process. I fervently believe that for the most part, women are unaware of this dynamic, but are nonetheless subject to it's influence. For a female of any species to facilitate a methodology for breeding with the best genetic partner she's able to attract AND to ensure her own and her offspring's survival with the best provisioning partner; this is an evolutionary jackpot.
Just to elaborate on this, it's the proactive cheating model here that's become the societal norm now. The AFC who willingly, voluntarily, shares in the parental investment of a single mother and sires what should be another man's genetic responsibility is counted as a Hero for doing so. It's become this martyrdom scenario for rescuing the poor woman from sure destitution and proves his "quality", but the net result is he is a retroactive cuckold. Why would this man be upheld socially as a bastion of virtue for doing so? Because it serves the feminine genetic imperative for having him do it. Turn the social scale to make him a Hero-Cuckold and the methodology isn't just perpetuated, it's socially approved and reinforced.
 

Colossus

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
3,505
Reaction score
547
Interesting question. There was a landmark study published in Nature in 1998 that definitively proved the existence of pheromones.

We always hear about them in sexual-enhancement and attraction advertising, so I personally always thought it was just unproven hogwash. But, the concept of pheromones (odorless airborne chemical signals) has been around for a while.

This same phenomenon was also proven in female rats. And anecdotally, as you said, by cohabiting young women.

Here's the link for anyone who's interested: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9515961?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlusDrugs1

This mechanism would certainly appear to serve the purpose of ensuring optimum species propagation, but I'm still not sold. What difference would it make if a group of women ovulated at the same time each month or independently of each other? Healthy males are capable of fertilizing at any time. I suppose it could be seen as a survival mechanism; i.e. if a group of females were all fertilized at once it may ensure more offspring as opposed to one at a time, but you using this argument implies the assumption that the females are being fertilized by a number of males that is less than the number of females in their synchronous group.
 

Colossus

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
3,505
Reaction score
547
Rollo Tomassi said:
You'd be surprised to find then that cuckoldry is a very common mating methodology in animals - birds in particular because of the relatively small clutch of progeny and the long gestation time. With a few notable exceptions, it's males that provide warmth for eggs that were never sired by him. Cuckoldry is also common amongst higher order animals as well, though we don't call it such. Bonobos and great apes live in communal groupings where cuckoldry is rampant. In fact alpha gorillas have the tendency to kill the young of females who've bred with other males before he'll mate with her as one of his "harem".
I did not know that. I guess I stand corrected on my previous comment.

rollo tomassi said:
Where we run into problems is when we decide what is or isn't "natural" behavior. Masturbation is a "natural" unlearned behavior, yet we think of it as deviant. The latent cause for this may be because it's self-pleasuring, and defeats a productive purpose, but the social convention of using shame for it is what we tend to focus on. Still, you cannot deny the behavior as innate.

Sexual methodologies will always be a combination of nature vs. nurture, unlearned, innate, biological behaviors vs. modeled and taught, socially acquired behaviors. Cuckoldry is still a reality regardless of the origins of the behavior. It's a methodology that has been a proven boon genetically (assuming the one employing it doesn't get found out) for women for centuries. I've covered this topic several times in past posts; it has a social stigma because it blatantly favors a woman's genetic imperative above a man's. We may think of this as unjust or despicable (and rightly so), but it is only one of hundreds of social conventions socially established that favor a woman's genetic priorities. Marriage, monogamy, pair-bonded sexual relations, are feminine methodologies used to ensure her long term security and parental investment requirements. Thus, these methodologies become accepted social conventions - they are the 'good' behaviors. Society as a whole standardizes these conventions and the frame of ALL gender relations is framed in the feminine to the point of it being taken for granted and anyone attempting to peer into the latent function of these conventions is ostracized - and often for just having asked the question.


Just to elaborate on this, it's the proactive cheating model here that's become the societal norm now. The AFC who willingly, voluntarily, shares in the parental investment of a single mother and sires what should be another man's genetic responsibility is counted as a Hero for doing so. It's become this martyrdom scenario for rescuing the poor woman from sure destitution and proves his "quality", but the net result is he is a retroactive cuckold. Why would this man be upheld socially as a bastion of virtue for doing so? Because it serves the feminine genetic imperative for having him do it. Turn the social scale to make him a Hero-Cuckold and the methodology isn't just perpetuated, it's socially approved and reinforced.
I certainly agree that cuckoldry not only serves the feminine genetic agenda but is societally reinforced. I guess whether or not it is "natural" is debatable. As DJ's we can all agreee that it is in most cases dispicable, but that is another thread.
 

Tell her a little about yourself, but not too much. Maintain some mystery. Give her something to think about and wonder about when she's at home.

Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.

Top