Are we men actually capable of loving someone till the day we die?

**xxazurexx** · 25-02-11, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by 80r

You seem to have neglected the words 'increased odds.' Nonetheless, a man can only really hope to get a handful of children off of one woman. However, if a man bounced from one woman to another, he could technically produce hundreds. Sure, it's not very practical in this age to do so, but Humanity has lived for 200,000 years, if I recall correctly; the last few centuries shouldn't be expected to have changed our nature, at all.

One woman I dare say could produce 25 to 30 kids in her lifetime....maybe more.

Why a need for hundreds?

**80r** · 25-02-11, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by xxazurexx

One woman I dare say could produce 25 to 30 kids in her lifetime....maybe more.

Why a need for hundreds?

Yes, but one woman could not hope to raise all 25 without the civilizations we have now. It's more logical to have 25 women who each raise one child.

The reason why some men are unable to 'make the first move' is a sociological thing rather than psychological. Perhaps they have low confidence or are just tired of always making first moves. Even if not, as I said, we all vary, though we may have some common 'base,' we are not restricted to it.

I don't see any examples of where a woman is going against her nature. Women desire children too, so there's nothing odd about her making a move.

There's a reason why most men, whether they admit to it or not, enjoy looking at porn. They desire other women and porn satisfies some of that urge. It can almost be viewed as a good thing for a relationship, though often times people take it too far.

Why a need for hundreds? To pass on the best genes. In a world without easy civilized living, if I can get dozens of children off of dozens of women, I must have some pretty damn good genes. Nature wants those genes to be passed on.

**sweetkissesforu** · 25-02-11, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by 80r

You seem to have neglected the words 'increased odds.' Nonetheless, a man can only really hope to get a handful of children off of one woman. However, if a man bounced from one woman to another, he could technically produce hundreds. Sure, it's not very practical in this age to do so, but Humanity has lived for 200,000 years, if I recall correctly; the last few centuries shouldn't be expected to have changed our nature, at all.

Along Aids or and Std to spread

**sweetkissesforu** · 25-02-11, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by xxazurexx

One woman I dare say could produce 25 to 30 kids in her lifetime....maybe more.

Why a need for hundreds?

Because in todays world we can afford to have that many children NOT

**HeartIsAching** · 26-02-11, 12:30 AM

Originally Posted by xxazurexx

Uhm ok...So men havn't changed at all then and over this few past hundred years you claim. Biologically, they remain the same.

So why then do so many men expect that women may have changed or want them to change and when it comes to 'dating'???? Lots of men would prefer that a woman makes the move and pursues the man....when biologically man is HUNTER and nature intended for him to pursue.

Same thing isn't it??? If man has not changed, why should woman have changed?

If we are capable of going against our biological instincts, why aren't men??

All seems like a good enough excuse and to screw who you want....not your fault, it's something you can't help or control....let's blame it on biology.

But when women will mention 'biology' she is scoffed at....

Not by me. My wife and I have broken the mold in many ways in our lives. She's the one that works on the cars - I just hand her tools. She's smarter than I am, too. She'll argue with me on that but I've never made straight A's in school at any point of my life, not even as an adult paying for it. She nearly always does.

**xxazurexx** · 26-02-11, 01:24 AM

Originally Posted by HeartIsAching

Not by me. My wife and I have broken the mold in many ways in our lives. She's the one that works on the cars - I just hand her tools. She's smarter than I am, too. She'll argue with me on that but I've never made straight A's in school at any point of my life, not even as an adult paying for it. She nearly always does.

Well tons have broke the mould and not everyone adheres to 'biology' or blames 'biology' and for the way they are, or what they want to do.

In my opinion it is not what biology dictates and because we have choices and can 'choose' and what we want to do.

Realistically' it's not a good idea to go around and impregnate hundreds of women. For a start, how would he pay child support and to one hundred children to one hundred mothers. Some men cannot pay support and for the 'kid' they have already got.
He could never even be a good role model and to any one child and if he had hundreds to different women and because he couldn't manage to live between one hundred households....lol

It's really all pathetic.

Some men I reckon rejoice in using the biology argument and for an excuse as to the way they way and they can't help who they are...and because they just feel a need to have sex with everyone and they are quite simply, horny bastards. They are entitled and to screw....because biology dictates it.

But of course they can help it who they are and what they do...it;s used a very poor excuse.

**xxazurexx** · 26-02-11, 01:26 AM

Originally Posted by 80r

Yes, but one woman could not hope to raise all 25 without the civilizations we have now. It's more logical to have 25 women who each raise one child.

I see. So in your 'ideal' world, women would be restricted to 'ONE' child, while men are free to fertilize as many women they can and have a hundred children to one hundred different women...uhm ok.
How is he going to afford child support and for 100 kids?? Most men can't afford the 'kid' they have got.

I don't see any examples of where a woman is going against her nature. Women desire children too, so there's nothing odd about her making a move.

Hunt, pursuit, and capture are biologically programmed into male sexuality!! It is 'not' a part of a females biological makeup.

If woman was like man, she'd also feel a desire to bed men and in order to have as many kids as possible and to spread her genes. Because woman is not like man and is not a 'hunter', she will instead choose from the most desirable of the 'hunters' and to have a child with.

If a woman chooses to make a move, it is because she wants to and has chosen to make a move....she goes against her biological instincts - or she may infact, possess half female brain/half male brain - yes, it's possible!!

If woman can dismiss and go against biological instinct....so can man. You do NOT have to screw loadsa women, lol

If you men accept that it's down to biology or look to it and for the way you are and you can't help who you are, then don't expect women to go against our biological programming either and help who we are either....which is NOT a 'hunter'.

**80r** · 26-02-11, 02:33 AM

Originally Posted by xxazurexx

I see. So in your 'ideal' world, women would be restricted to 'ONE' child, while men are free to fertilize as many women they can and have a hundred children to one hundred different women...uhm ok.
How is he going to afford child support and for 100 kids?? Most men can't afford the 'kid' they have got.

Hunt, pursuit, and capture are biologically programmed into male sexuality!! It is 'not' a part of a females biological makeup.

If woman was like man, she'd also feel a desire to bed men and in order to have as many kids as possible and to spread her genes. Because woman is not like man and is not a 'hunter', she will instead choose from the most desirable of the 'hunters' and to have a child with.

If a woman chooses to make a move, it is because she wants to and has chosen to make a move....she goes against her biological instincts - or she may infact, possess half female brain/half male brain - yes, it's possible!!

If you men accept that it's down to biology or look to it and for the way you are and you can't help who you are, then don't expect women to go against our biological programming either and help who we are either....which is NOT a 'hunter'.

You seem to be ignoring the majority of the things I say. First of all, I said that a man's instincts aren't practical in today's society, but we haven't had enough time to evolve away from our current nature. Child support is irrelevant. Second, I never said that a man didn't have a choice. Though I may desire other women, I have not and will never cheat. Third, you keep saying that nature dictates that women shouldn't ever hunt, which is entirely untrue. Women desire offspring just as much as men do, they just don't have the urge to jump from person to person, unlike men, since it doesn't make any sense to. It's more logical for a woman to find one male and keep that male around to support her and her (their) children. Males are less likely to support a child that is not their own.

Finally, just because this is our nature, doesn't mean that we must live in shackles to our instincts. We are so highly evolved that we are not bound to them, though we may be born to them.

**xxazurexx** · 26-02-11, 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by 80r

n.

Finally, just because this is our nature, doesn't mean that we must live in shackles to our instincts. We are so highly evolved that we are not bound to them, though we may be born to them.

True.

Unfortunately not all men think the way you do and they will use it as an excuse and for being horny twits and think women should accept that it's 'just the way men are'.
Like you say, maybe it's the way men are...but it doesn't mean they have to be that way.

**Regnent** · 26-02-11, 01:43 PM

I can't pinpoint this, but I get this nagging feeling that women can be women, but men are not allowed to be men.

Hey, I know you bleed out every month, and turn into a raging bitch because it sucks and you've got hormones raging through your body, but hey, it really doesn't have to be that way.

You know what, yah, men have a sex drive. It doesn't need a starter, or cuddling or any bullshit. It's not an excuse, it's just part of having a dick.
Whether we're lining women up at our door, or have chosen to settle with only one, doesn't change that fact that we have a penis. We're horny twits regardless.

I get that there is an ethical and moral aspect when it comes to sleeping around, this applies to both men and women. Personally, I find the behavior lacking class, but I don't see anything wrong with adults enjoying themselves.

I -might- be off my rocker, but I honestly don't think so, but I tend to get the feeling that some women (in general) seem to think of themselves on some ethical/moral pedestal, with the vagina some sacred object, and the penis (in general) some filthy vile animal to be warded off.
I've -never- gotten the feeling from a man who feels that sleeping around for a woman is not proper, as attacking the female gender.
I -do- get the feeling that many women who think that men sleeping around isn't proper, -are- attacking the male gender.

Yes, women do -not-, generally, have a hormone, or instinct to just screw. Fine for you.
Yes, men -do-, generally, have hormones and instincts to screw anything that moves. Get the F over it. It's what we are. And what choices me make, are individual, and not a 'fault' or a 'problem' of being a male.

**HeartIsAching** · 26-02-11, 09:54 PM