It's a Man's World
It's a Man's World
Numerous Articles and postings appear on 440 debating the Pro’s and Con’s of getting involved with a lady of “ Colourful Background”
Their cunning and treachery are often recanted by the hapless Pussy Whipped Farang who would gladly cut off his testicles to get back with her.
But what about the “ Grey Men” those that profess there love for the woman and pledge fidelity till death, but also attempt to throw it into whatever hole they can find whenever they are out of sight of the little woman they love so much.
They say it’s very difficult to take the Bar out of the Bargirl, but can you lay all the blame at their feet when they too have the same worry of:
“ Who else is he Bonking on the side “
“ Is he really going to come back to Cambodia”
“ Why does he always go to Pattaya for his Visa run”
Perhaps the blokes are not the only one’s to undergo a bit of mental suffering in these relationships.
Their cunning and treachery are often recanted by the hapless Pussy Whipped Farang who would gladly cut off his testicles to get back with her.
But what about the “ Grey Men” those that profess there love for the woman and pledge fidelity till death, but also attempt to throw it into whatever hole they can find whenever they are out of sight of the little woman they love so much.
They say it’s very difficult to take the Bar out of the Bargirl, but can you lay all the blame at their feet when they too have the same worry of:
“ Who else is he Bonking on the side “
“ Is he really going to come back to Cambodia”
“ Why does he always go to Pattaya for his Visa run”
Perhaps the blokes are not the only one’s to undergo a bit of mental suffering in these relationships.
I refuse to go out with nothing more than a whimper followed by a small farting sound and a shit stain on my bed sheets..
Just thought I'd share that with you.
Just thought I'd share that with you.
-
- I have some social problems
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 523
- Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:02 pm
-
- My Best Friend is my Computer
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:05 am
That is only a hypothesis, not a fact, that doesn't even tell a whole story. In of itself, it isn’t beneficial evolutionarily just rather from a masculine perspective a bit glamorous (and in Judeo-Christian societies, rings true). I mean, you "spread your seed" to a bunch of women and they have kids ... and then what? In order for it to be beneficial you’d have to be able to care of all the children or they die out, even the strongest ones. Polygamy, theoretically, would be the “answer” if you take only things that fit into that hypothesis. But history shows that only exists in the most rigid of hierarchical and (eventually)/or the most authoritarian of governments as either from not being able to “get” a wife men get phased out and abandoned (it isn’t theoretical; look at Arizona where there are 400+ young men on the streets) and/or social consequences of abandoned men rummaging for resources resulting in said authoritarian government. Of course, the women are left with few freedoms already.kimcheemonster wrote:Not quite the same. We do it out of biological programming. As human men, we are programmed to spread our seeds to as many females as we can.
Or, you could just abandon the kids to the mom, but we know children benefit from fathers … so what there is beneficial? For what is the “programming” necessary? Besides, you aren't even making babies, so where the hell is the argument?
In fact, there is just as much - if not more - reasons and evidence to conclude it is necessary for the woman to take more lovers in order to ensure the production and survival of the strongest offspring; see paternal partible in South America (like the Tapirape, Bari, and Ache tribes). Women take more than one lover. Not only are her pregnancies more likely to come to term, but the kids are the healthiest and have the best chances of survival.
That is, if you want to go the evolutionary-biology way where everything exists in a vacuum.
- Starving Pelican
- I am a Special Snowflake !!?!
- Reactions: 83
- Posts: 5850
- Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:21 pm
- Location: Cat Food Paradise
-
- I live above an internet cafe
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 3:48 pm
Actually, it's the [b]theory[/b] of parental investment.
Basically, for males, sex is cheap - a few grams of protein (and about $10, in SEAsia :). For females, on the other hand sex potentially costs 9 months of gestation, a dangerous birth, and years of nurturing.
Of course there are complications on closer examination, such as males having to expend effort to persuade females to mate having to compete (perhaps even risking violence) with other males, or of females having 'extra-marital' sex with more desirable mates, once she has secured a stable partner to help raise her offspring, etc.
But the argument holds: sex is cheap for males, potentially very costly for
females. There is therefore strong evolutionary pressure for males to be
promiscuous, and for females to be much more choosy. 'fatherless' offspring are much better than no offspring at all.
This is reflected in behaviour, and as is often the case with biologically
inflicted behavioural pressure, it manifests as desires and urges. Men want sex much more readily, and are much less choosy about their partners than women. Further, in societies that have allowed men to amass enough wealth to support (or control) more than one female, polygamy has been a frequent characteristic.
IMHO all the stuff about judaeo-christian society etc is just mumbo jumbo psycobable - sorry Nivana. Different societies attempt to deal with things in different ways, but sexual behavioural pressures and urges are biological.
My view: the sexes are not equivalent, so gender equality is futile, and even
undesirable - if I wanted my partner to be equivalent to a man, I'd have gone the whole hog and started sporting a moustache and wearing sallopetes. Gender 'fairness' would be a better aim.
As for the post, I think many bargirl relationships are a bit one-sided in terms of how much is invested in the relationship. The girl is often just doing her job. The guy has sometimes divorced, repatriated and changed career to be with her.
Basically, for males, sex is cheap - a few grams of protein (and about $10, in SEAsia :). For females, on the other hand sex potentially costs 9 months of gestation, a dangerous birth, and years of nurturing.
Of course there are complications on closer examination, such as males having to expend effort to persuade females to mate having to compete (perhaps even risking violence) with other males, or of females having 'extra-marital' sex with more desirable mates, once she has secured a stable partner to help raise her offspring, etc.
But the argument holds: sex is cheap for males, potentially very costly for
females. There is therefore strong evolutionary pressure for males to be
promiscuous, and for females to be much more choosy. 'fatherless' offspring are much better than no offspring at all.
This is reflected in behaviour, and as is often the case with biologically
inflicted behavioural pressure, it manifests as desires and urges. Men want sex much more readily, and are much less choosy about their partners than women. Further, in societies that have allowed men to amass enough wealth to support (or control) more than one female, polygamy has been a frequent characteristic.
IMHO all the stuff about judaeo-christian society etc is just mumbo jumbo psycobable - sorry Nivana. Different societies attempt to deal with things in different ways, but sexual behavioural pressures and urges are biological.
My view: the sexes are not equivalent, so gender equality is futile, and even
undesirable - if I wanted my partner to be equivalent to a man, I'd have gone the whole hog and started sporting a moustache and wearing sallopetes. Gender 'fairness' would be a better aim.
As for the post, I think many bargirl relationships are a bit one-sided in terms of how much is invested in the relationship. The girl is often just doing her job. The guy has sometimes divorced, repatriated and changed career to be with her.
Where do you get this? Fish, or certain fish, are completely monogamous and look after the offspring together. The male ruffed lemur tends the nest while the female foages for food. In half of all species of the New World monkeys, males care directly for offspring and is often the primary care-giver. In monogamous species of night monkeys, the carried the offspring 18-20% more than the female in it's first week. Male baboons stand by on watch to protect. The male seahorse actually carries the child.Starving Pelican wrote:very perceptive Nirvana, however you forget the most important thing: in the animal kingdom, it is not the man's job to look after the young.
Besides, we are not animals; we have consciences, we recognize symbols, we have complex culture. Equating yourself with animals cuts two ways because it also means you’d have to be kept in a cage due to your unpredictability and forced to surrender your power. I certainly don't see that happening soon, though.
"Parental investment" goes both ways though. You assume the mother is programmed to just be there and/or carry the offspring to term.BarangBarang wrote:Actually, it's the theory of parental investment.
Again, though, the whole point is that it is supposed to be benificial, that it is supposed to make sense. The most benifits seems to comes from the woman having the choice and multiple lovers. We can actually see this in action.
Basically, for males, sex is cheap - a few grams of protein (and about $10, in SEAsia .
There are more things that play into that like poverty, classism, etc. I'm not trying to start anything, but at the end of the day that is the truth. There are male prostitutes too.
Birth control, abortions, abandonment ... this is nothing new. You ever read primatologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's book Infanticide: Comparative and Evolutionary Perspectives, Mother Nature: A History of Mothers, Infants and Natural Selection? Cultural conditioning shows through when one assumes that men can just run off due to "programming", but with women they're "programmed" where no idea to contracept, abort, abandon, or even kill exists. Besides, do you actually think we haven't evolved since birth control?For females, on the other hand sex potentially costs 9 months of gestation, a dangerous birth, and years of nurturing.
But once we decide things should benifit, that is when both become involved. Historically, biology and anthropology was looked at from a soley male perspective as most of the researchers were males seeing through a scope that reflected the cultural climate at the time. Much of these old world ideas remains in mainstream thought despite, as Sarah Blaffer Hrdy puts it, "the accumulation of abundant openly available evidence contradicting it." Likely due to cultural beliefs.
In fairness, that is in societies where there is male control over female behavior (ie. USA), women are shamed about their sexuality and a dichotomy forms. The mere fact, though, that women are still having affairs and promiscuous sex should be the first indication it isn't "programming". For many cultures (again, the tribes in S. America and egalitarian horticultures) women either chose the mates, and there is little to no "jealously", or she takes several lovers for her children they grow up to be the healthiest.Of course there are complications on closer examination, such as males having to expend effort to persuade females to mate having to compete (perhaps even risking violence) with other males, or of females having 'extra-marital' sex with more desirable mates, once she has secured a stable partner to help raise her offspring, etc.
But the argument holds: sex is cheap for males, potentially very costly for
females. There is therefore strong evolutionary pressure for males to be
promiscuous, and for females to be much more choosy.
It is only "cheap" for males due to societal elements. It is only "costly" for females due to societal elements.
Society disagrees with you. If there were *no* children, there wouldn't be evolution at all. Therefore, no reason for any of these theories. When there are misguided children, there is chaos and, often eventually, authoritarian power.'fatherless' offspring are much better than no offspring at all.
Behavior is influenced by more than just biology.This is reflected in behaviour,
and as is often the case with biologically
inflicted behavioural pressure, it manifests as desires and urges. Men want sex much more readily, and are much less choosy about their partners than women.
Actually, according to the theory you go by, they are choosy in different ways. But anyway, if what you were saying were true, there would be no crossing over. But you can find women wanting sex "readily" and men not so much. You can find men not so concerned about looks, but women who just can't stand the thought of touching a homely man.
They have also been more oppressive and hierarchical.Further, in societies that have allowed men to amass enough wealth to support (or control) more than one female, polygamy has been a frequent characteristic.
IMHO all the stuff about judaeo-christian society etc is just mumbo jumbo psycobable - sorry Nivana. Different societies attempt to deal with things in different ways, but sexual behavioural pressures and urges are biological.
Some elements may be biological, but it respondes to stimuli. In the United States, a heterosexual man can go just about anywhere and see a half naked woman because due to religion, likely, women were taught to not express their sexual desires. It is not hard to figure out why men would generally be more "on alert" as far as that. Plus, they don't have as many restrictions on them about their sexuality and, in fact, masculinity is often defined by his promiscuity (women, not so much with femininity; you'd be a "slut"). Much like in Moracco the men participate in those "beauty" contests and the women choose. Or male peacocks have all the feathers.
But, of course, I don't buy into any essentialist theory either way. Wea re complex people who shouldn't chalk everything up to yet-to-be-identfied genes and programming, which is for the most part obsolete at this point anyway.
I don't think we should be "the same" but I do believe we should be recognised as "equal". No, it doesn't mean we all need moustaches. So I disagree.My view: the sexes are not equivalent, so gender equality is futile, and even
undesirable - if I wanted my partner to be equivalent to a man, I'd have gone the whole hog and started sporting a moustache and wearing sallopetes. Gender 'fairness' would be a better aim.
-
- I live above an internet cafe
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 3:48 pm
Theories aren't meant to be beneficial - they're supposed to be a model of reality. And yes, females are 'programmed' to carry offspring to term - how else are births supposed to happen?"Parental investment" goes both ways though. You assume the mother is programmed to just be there and/or carry the offspring to term.
Again, though, the whole point is that it is supposed to be benificial, that it is supposed to make sense. The most benifits seems to comes from the woman having the choice and multiple lovers. We can actually see this in action.
I don't see very many societies that condone women having multiple lovers - yes, it can be beneficial for women to have each of their kids from a differnent father, for diversity (disease resistance) reasons. But they benefit far more by having a partner to help raise the kids. The partner of course wants to spend their energy raising their own kids, not someone else's Hence societal structures that *are* common - ie marriage (sometimes polygamous), with a bit of cheating, on both sides (though anecdotally, more on the male side than the female).
Both males, and females, suffer poverty. Sex is 'cheap' for males relative to females - I'm not talking dollars, but reality - men don't get pregnant. There are very few male prostitutes (catering to women) relative to female prostitutes. And none of them AFAIK offer 'short time' - they're expected to 'romance' their client.There are more things that play into that like poverty, classism, etc. I'm not trying to start anything, but at the end of the day that is the truth. There are male prostitutes too.
Yes indeed, women now have access to birth control etc. This sparked a sexual revolution, to some degree. But Evolution is slow.Besides, do you actually think we haven't evolved since birth control?
Hrdy is, lets say, considered to be at the feminist end of the spectrum within her field.Historically, biology and anthropology was looked at from a soley male perspective .... as Sarah Blaffer Hrdy puts it
Yes, there is evidence that women having multiple partners can be beneficial ni evolutionary terms - there is more diversity, which benefits disease resistance and so forth. And I believe recent studies ewen show that male sperm quality improves if there is other male competition around. But having a partner willing to commit and help raise the kids is far more beneficial. The last I looked, 'horticulture' refered to the growing of plants.For many cultures (again, the tribes in S. America and egalitarian horticultures) women either chose the mates, and there is little to no "jealously", or she takes several lovers for her children they grow up to be the healthiest.
As a simple example of males being more promiscuous, etc, generally speaking, I will happily sleep with any attractive female. Most women cannot make the same statement, and not just for societal reasons.
Of course, there are exceptions.
Sex is 'cheap'or 'costly' due to biological reality reasons. Men don't get pregnant. In fact societal reasons are having the *reverse* impact, especially, for example in the UK, where women can pursue biological fathers for child support payments, thus changing the old biological rules. But the introduction of the child support thing hasn't had much effect on *my* sexual desires. Sadly, nor have I seen attractive young women suddenly starting to abandon themselves to the moment, now fully reassured by the thought that the law will ensure their potential offspring are adequately catered for. Evolution is slow.It is only "cheap" for males due to societal elements. It is only "costly" for females due to societal elements.
Society may disagree with whether its better to have 'fatherless' children or not (And I agree, that it is not). But biology doesn't care about that - it just cares that individuals have as many children as possible, who are as successful as possible. Women can only have so many children, so they'd better be successful. Men can have lots of children, along with the few that are well cared for.Society disagrees with you. If there were *no* children, there wouldn't be evolution at all. Therefore, no reason for any of these theories. When there are misguided children, there is chaos and, often eventually, authoritarian power.
Behavior is indeed influenced by all kinds of factors. But sex is a pretty strong factor.Behavior is influenced by more than just biology.
In general, men are concerned about looks, and women dont put out to all comers. There are exceptions, and exceptional circumstances, but then again the world is a pretty diverse place.Actually, according to the theory you go by, they are choosy in different ways. But anyway, if what you were saying were true, there would be no crossing over. But you can find women wanting sex "readily" and men not so much. You can find men not so concerned about looks, but women who just can't stand the thought of touching a homely man.
Both sexes 'choose' each other, to some extent. Given that males will mate with most candidate females, female choice is probably the deciding factor in many cases. But female choice is usually passive, as in mutiple choice. Generally, its the men who do the courting. Perhaps its different in progressive NYC.
Of course there are some stimuli that seem to have a predictable effect on most men. Sure, you can start to ignore the billboard every morning on the 7:38 to Euston. But why don't we see more billboards or TV featuring 'sexy' men? Perhaps because women do not respond as readily to such purely sexual stimuli? There is nothing obsolete about biology and nature. It is responsible for our deepest desires and urges, for sex, love, power. Sure, we can try to override these desires, and they manifest in all kinds of diverse ways. But we can't fully control tor suppress them.Some elements may be biological, but it respondes to stimuli......But, of course, I don't buy into any essentialist theory either way. Wea re complex people who shouldn't chalk everything up to yet-to-be-identfied genes and programming, which is for the most part obsolete at this point anyway. .
Sorry, the moustache and sallopetes thing was a reference to becoming a gay man - I didn't mean to imply that some women had moustaches.I don't think we should be "the same" but I do believe we should be recognised as "equal". No, it doesn't mean we all need moustaches. So I disagree.
Is the Avatar you BTW ?
BarangBarang wrote: Theories aren't meant to be beneficial - they're supposed to be a model of reality.
Theories can be just about anything, beneficial or not. I can theorize that there are ghosts. I can theorize that they are disembodied souls who have unfinished business. I can theorize that they are residuals of energy caught in time and space due to traumatic events. But first I have to show there are souls. Then I have to show energy from people can be captured without the help of neurons, pumping blood, etc. I also have to show the events took place were actually traumatic. Then I have to show the particular traumatic event generated so much energy. Then I have to show the existence of ghosts. But first, I have the hypotheses to explain certain activity. As far as being programmed to spread seed to as many women as possible, it isn’t as back-up as it is believed to. It is more a hypotheses to explain things with theories made in accordance. From an anthropological and evolutionary-biological perspective, it would have to explain how we got here. But it doesn’t, really.
Physically, yeah. Most of the time (she may be barren). Just as the man is programmed physically to shoot his sperm (granted, only 1 of several many will make it, but still). But like it can be counteracted with men, it can be with women, too. So while it is possble and necessary for birth physically, it is not inevitable physically and "programmed" psychologically.And yes, females are 'programmed' to carry offspring to term - how else are births supposed to happen?
I don't see very many societies that condone women having multiple lovers - yes, it can be beneficial for women to have each of their kids from a differnent father, for diversity (disease resistance) reasons.
Well that is a great point you bring up. Many societies don't condone women having multiple partners. Now, if it wasn't something she does naturally, why would it be an issue? I mean why would death sentences and social ostrazation be necessary is it isn't natural? Also, in the name of what are they punished and chastized most of the time? I'll give you a hint: it starts with "re" and ends with "ligion".
But they benefit far more by having a partner to help raise the kids.
Yes, they do. The child and society benifiets far more too. Apparently, they benifit far more with more than one man in many. It seems to depend on what is accepted in the society.
The partner of course wants to spend their energy raising their own kids, not someone else's
Not all the time. As one Frenchman who travelled to Alaska (I believe it was) found out.
Males are more likely to be taught to read and valued. Females, coupled with that disadvantage, typically have the burden of caring for everybody else in her family over the male and are valued more for their virginity. It puts her in a unique situation. The men could become prostitutes, but in society where women's sexuality is shamed, it wouldn't be something he'd think of.Both males, and females, suffer poverty.
There are also more women and more women who are put at a disadvantage as far as power than men. Since the rest is anecdotal, I can't really answer.Sex is 'cheap' for males relative to females - I'm not talking dollars, but reality - men don't get pregnant. There are very few male prostitutes (catering to women) relative to female prostitutes. And none of them AFAIK offer 'short time' - they're expected to 'romance' their client.
One way or the other, women had always access to birth control. Be it abortions or the long-vanished contraceptive plant that was used to extinction in old European civilizations.Yes indeed, women now have access to birth control etc. This sparked a sexual revolution, to some degree. But Evolution is slow.
How would that undermine her actual findings? You seems to accept the old world findings from Judeo-Christian influenced and even flat-out mysogynists. Shouldn't things be argued on their own merits (even I accept the findings of those others, it is just knowing what we do now changes it and also brings everything else into it)? Like I said, I don't buy into *any* rigid evolutionary-biological ideas and find much of it obsolete, but I still think that findings stand on their own.Hrdy is, lets say, considered to be at the feminist end of the spectrum within her field.
Yes, there is evidence that women having multiple partners can be beneficial ni evolutionary terms - there is more diversity, which benefits disease resistance and so forth. And I believe recent studies ewen show that male sperm quality improves if there is other male competition around.
That is true. Their balls get bigger.
But having a partner willing to commit and help raise the kids is far more beneficial.
In societies contructed in accordence, yes, a single partner would be just fine. But is it innately so?
Yes. That is what they do.The last I looked, 'horticulture' refered to the growing of plants.
As a simple example of males being more promiscuous, etc, generally speaking, I will happily sleep with any attractive female. Most women cannot make the same statement, and not just for societal reasons.
But they are societal reasons reacting to biology. In a society like the Bari in South America, it wouldn't be such a big deal because it is set up to accomadate as much.
If it were truelly innate, there wouldn't be. It isn't majority rules. Democracy is something humans invented.Of course, there are exceptions.
Sex is 'cheap'or 'costly' due to biological reality reasons.
Set upon societal ones in most cases.
Men don't get pregnant. In fact societal reasons are having the *reverse* impact, especially, for example in the UK, where women can pursue biological fathers for child support payments, thus changing the old biological rules.
Men have to be responsible for their actions now. That is very human and highly evolved. We do better for it, it is the natural progression of the human condition.
I think that depends on whether you believe sexuality exists in a vacuum. Again, I don't think biology is necessarily the be-all, end-all (there is a saying in anthropology "motivation need not show function"); several things play into it. I am just saying there is evidence either way ... perhaps more in favor of women's promiscuity as far as ensuring the safe survival of society. Men have more pressures to want/have to "abandon themselves in the moment" because especially in the western world, heterosexual male sexuality is first and foremost. It can also be damaging, as while women are restricted sexually and told they are "sluts", if men don't have sex or aren't sexually attracted or want to have sex they are called lovely, lovely man/gay (which leads to several other problems). Or, the men who aren't picked by women in a society due to the box her sexuality is allowed to exist in basically lose out.But the introduction of the child support thing hasn't had much effect on *my* sexual desires. Sadly, nor have I seen attractive young women suddenly starting to abandon themselves to the moment, now fully reassured by the thought that the law will ensure their potential offspring are adequately catered for. Evolution is slow.
As men get older, their sperm gets a bit fucked-up and deformed and they produce less in what is already low chances of making an egg. Over the years, sperm count has decreased in fact. And isn't the point that we make things work? Isn't one of the fundementals of EB that biology changes to adapt?Society may disagree with whether its better to have 'fatherless' children or not (And I agree, that it is not). But biology doesn't care about that - it just cares that individuals have as many children as possible, who are as successful as possible. Women can only have so many children, so they'd better be successful. Men can have lots of children, along with the few that are well cared for.
That is what I was talking about. Sex and sexual behavior is influenced by many things. You heard of that wild-child called Genie in the 70s who was strapped to a chair until her prepeubescence. They took her out when they found her and she was virtually unsocialized. However, she was just masturbate in front of everybody. She didn't care and would use anything she could; she wasn't aiming to make a baby, she was aiming to relieve something (only the spatial part of her brain was developed, too, as she just sat in the chair looking at shit). Years ago in the west, pale skin and some meat was attractive; now it is seemingly the opposite. Like men who go see dominatrixes: they don't have sex, they just have this woman play dominence tot heir submissive. It isn't all narrowly-biological and can change at any time, is very complex.Behavior is indeed influenced by all kinds of factors. But sex is a pretty strong factor.
I don't know if that is true everywhere anymore. But anyway, certainly this wouldn't be the case if everything was innate.In general, men are concerned about looks, and women dont put out to all comers. There are exceptions, and exceptional circumstances, but then again the world is a pretty diverse place.
Of course there are some stimuli that seem to have a predictable effect on most men. Sure, you can start to ignore the billboard every morning on the 7:38 to Euston. But why don't we see more billboards or TV featuring 'sexy' men? Perhaps because women do not respond as readily to such purely sexual stimuli?
Because for one they are mostly owned and made by men. For two, at a young age girls are socialized more than men to not be concerned with that stuff. Of course, it is changing, and you are seeing more and more sex-ified men. As well as beauty products (ie. moisturizers) aimed at men. But also, femininity due to Civil Rights and the subsequent women's lib - and their equivilent else ware - has been allowed more flexibility. "Sexy" for a hetero-sexual female can be about his looks, can be about his humor, can be about his intelligence, can be about anything. Masculinity, I think, is still for the most part stuck in time where a male can be considered "weak" for being more concerned with things other than looks or not wantign to act macho. Even if it isn't how they really are.
But, certainly if you take those billboards to other parts of the world the men wouldn't as aroused for the most part. What is stimulating to men in the west may not be to men else ware who see things like breasts and the naked body mundane. It was, in fact, men who enforced the rule that women should cover up their breasts; if breast weren't covered up, it wouldn't be that big of a deal.
I am not talking about that as a whole, rather certain hypothesizes formed in EB or the way biology is realized/expressed. I mean you can take a person who shits in a ditch. You can say, "they shit in a ditch to ensure the growth of the crops!" or "they shit in a ditch obviously so the animals they eat can have food without having to wander off too far", or "they shit in a ditch because it was the only place they could find at the moment". Yeah, we have to shit ... but where, when, why isn't really that important now accept for diseases. Of course things will manifest differently. But not as narrowly as many imply.There is nothing obsolete about biology and nature. It is responsible for our deepest desires and urges, for sex, love, power. Sure, we can try to override these desires, and they manifest in all kinds of diverse ways. But we can't fully control tor suppress them.
I know what you meant. I was just saying I distunguish equal from same. Therefore, equal doesn't amount to you having to may as well go for a guy if it is amounting to women having moustaches too.Sorry, the moustache and sallopetes thing was a reference to becoming a gay man - I didn't mean to imply that some women had moustaches.
Nah, it is Fiona Apple. But we have the same hair pretty much (though mine is longer and curlier). Someday this board should open a, "show your damn picture" thread though.Is the Avatar you BTW ?
- Playboy
- 20,000 Posts; I need professional help !
- Reactions: 288
- Posts: 24827
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 6:30 pm
- Location: Hotel K: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
- Contact:
Which roughly translates as ‘you look hot, I need to spread my seed with you…’BarangBarang wrote: Is the Avatar you BTW ?
I will show you mine if you show me yours…Nirv not an Apple wrote:Someday this board should open a, "show your damn picture" thread though.
"We, the sons of John Company, have arrived"
-
- My Best Friend is my Computer
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:05 am
-
- I've got internet at work
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:48 am
kimcheemonster wrote:Nirvana,
You are a woman, so you dont understand. Listen Sweety, if you were a man you would understand. A man can walk into a club back home and see 50 women he'd sleep with, but a woman might see 3 or 4. Why?
Sex has to different for chicks. I could understand how there could be a huge difference in the thought process.Because we are sluts and happy to be so
Isn't it an internal/external thing? Both physically and mentally. The female gender, has something entering into their body."We"(men) are entering into their body. We don't have a concept of what that might be like to be the entered. That in itself is a huge difference.
-
- My Best Friend is my Computer
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:05 am
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 1 Replies
- 1027 Views
-
Last post by Felgerkarb
Sun Nov 01, 2020 3:35 pm
-
- 113 Replies
- 26157 Views
-
Last post by slavedog
Sun Nov 03, 2019 12:19 pm
-
- 309 Replies
- 36455 Views
-
Last post by toim
Mon Apr 13, 2020 1:26 am
-
-
Expat partners working in 3rd World shitholes
by spitthedog » Sat Mar 13, 2021 4:43 pm » in Cambodia Speakeasy - 12 Replies
- 1333 Views
-
Last post by Cam.O'Dear
Mon Mar 15, 2021 5:02 am
-