Why the hypersex culture is bad for men

**novaseeker** · 30th-December-2008

This is, in part, a response to the discussion that we were having in this thread -- given the length, I decided to start a new thread for it.

This is a long post, so I’ll give a bullet point summary at the outset, while encouraging those who are inclined to read the full post:

The main vector of female power vis-à-vis men is access to sex. This is not a matter of politics, it is a matter of biology.
Genetically, women are encouraged to favor alpha males as mates to enhance the chance of having successful offspring.
A mating system that favors most females therefore is not one in which alpha male genes are monopolized by a few women, but a system where such genes are available to more women.
All things being equal, it is therefore natural for women to prefer non-monogamy to monogamy, which is mainly why the women’s rights movement has walked in lockstep with the sexual revolution – the former is not fully possible, in terms of recasting the species reproduction system (which is at the core of femaleness in biological and genetic terms) in a way that benefits most women, without the latter.
The hypersexualization of society is a development which follows from the growth in female power, because it serves to significantly elevate the general levels of male sexual desire, which both enhances the natural female power center (access to sex) and increases the availability of alpha males for more women than a society which favors monogamy and tighter sexual mores.
In effect, men, as a gender, have been, and are currently being, rather thoroughly bamboozled by the relaxation of sexual mores – the movement of society in this direction only serves to entrench female power at the expense of males, who are effectively duped into thinking this is positive either because (a) in the case of alpha males, they have access to a greater number of females sexually or (b) for non-alpha males, they have access to other sexual outlets, most of which involve paying women (either directly in the form of prostitution, or indirectly in the form of pornography and in fact any other product that is sold on the basis of sex) for access to sexual release – something which allows women to benefit from their sexual power base, in the case of non-alpha males who are not ideal mating material.

Now the long version.

I think that human behaviors can be viewed as a composite of our genetic leanings coupled with our social systems and the conditioning impact they have on behavior. We've been living for quite some time under a patriarchal system, more or less, and so the "rules" that relate to sex that have been developed are also patriarchal in nature -- we've had them for so long, that many view them as immutable, but in reality they are more in the line of social conditioning, rather than immutable. Genetic programming is more immutable – it also changes, very slowly as we know, over the course of long periods of time -- but for purposes of the human historical time periods we're considering, and particular the current age we live in, it's pretty close to being immutable as a practical matter.

What does this have to do with sex? The male and the female have different genetically based incentives when it comes to reproduction. This is because sperm is plentiful, whereas eggs are not, relative to each other. Therefore, women are incented to be much “pickier” about their mating partners than men are – in the market of human sexual genetics, it’s a seller’s market where women are the sellers. This is why women, generally speaking, pick the most alpha mate that they can attain in any given setting. We learn this as boys in high school, when the mating game gets underway – it never really changes, although the criteria that women use for discerning who is an “alpha” and therefore worthy of mating with, do change over the course of time and age and the context is important for that.

In considering this, you have to look at what kind of social system around sex would be beneficial for the needs of women, and what system would not. The current system, which we have inherited from our patriarchal past, features monogamy as the norm for male/female relationships. Monogamy, in fact, is a system that favors males more than females. The reason for this is that in a monogamy-based system, only a few females can choose to mate with the alpha males – they effectively are monopolizing the alpha male genes. Under this system, the rest of the women are essentially limited to mating with genetically less than ideal mating partners – the non-alpha males. As a result, most females, if given a choice, will, in the end, mate with these less than ideal males because this mating at least gives them a chance to reproduce their own genes, even if it is less than ideal, or has a lesser chance of having successful offspring (relative to the offspring of others). Meanwhile for the males, monogamy provides a much greater likelihood that non-alpha males will be able to mate at all – precisely because the vast majority of women will not have access to the alpha males they would prefer to mate with. So the system of monogamy helps ensure that more men find mates, but it does so at the “expense” of women, in terms of most women having to “settle” for less than their “ideal” alpha sperm.

A system of “rules” around sexuality which would favor the majority of women in terms of the genetic side of reproduction would therefore not involve monogamy. Rather, a system favoring most women would provide for non-monogamy whereby more women would have access to alpha males for mating, rather than a system of monogamy whereby only a small number of females effectively monopolize the alpha male genes.

What does this have to do with our current trend towards a hypersexualized culture? A few things. First, a culture that slides away from monogamy and towards more “casual sex” is something that clearly favors more women, because it provides more women with access to the alpha males sexually. In fact, this is basically what is happening in the hookup culture … there is a lot of discussion about the prevalence of hooking up, but in reality precisely *who* is hooking up is quite revealing: the alpha males are hooking up a *lot* with a lot of different females, whereas many non-alpha men are not really favored as hookup partners by women. Now of course most of these hookups are not reproductive and are not intended to be so – but it’s still the case that women are genetically incented, in terms of how their attraction is wired, to want to mate with alphas, even when they know that this mating will likely not be reproductive – there really isn’t a separate set of attractional programming depending on the kind of sexual encounter and whether it is expected to be fecund. Remember, women will, if given the choice, always choose alphas – it’s just that what constitutes an alpha when a girl is 17 is often a bit different than what constitutes an alpha when she is 30 – but the basic attractional vector is the same.

Steeped as we are in the patriarchal traditions of monogamy, many people have been amazed at the extent to which seemingly otherwise “empowered” young women have “collaborated” in the establishment of the hookup culture – because it is widely seen as young women giving the young men what it is presumed they always wanted, namely access to casual sex, and being “free” from the limits imposed on them by societal expectations of monogamy. That is to say, our civilization tends to view the advent of free sex as being a boon primarily to men, who are supposedly given access to sexual opportunities at a lower cost, in terms of relationships and responsibilities, than was the case under the norms of monogamy. However, it’s pretty clear that women are collaborating with the hookup system because it suits them – under a hookup system, more of them have access to alphas to have sex with than is the case if a handful of women were monopolizing the alphas by expecting monogamy. Under our current situation – which is a transitional period away from the patriarchal model, but one in which monogamy is still considered a societal norm by many people – most women are still choosing monogamous relationships when they “settle down” to have children and raise a family. But trends indicate a substantial and rather dramatic move away from marriage – and if that continues, we can expect that monogamy will, eventually, nor longer be viewed as normative. In fact, many would say that it already is not normative de facto, and that the recognition of the reality that it is no longer normative is just a matter of time.

These trends are reinforced when the culture as a whole becomes hyper-sexualized. Why is this? Because if the culture is bombarding males 24/7 with sexual messages and imagery, men (including alphas) will be less able, over time, to manage their own sexual desires and to channel them in ways that are productive for men, and instead will be encouraged to want to have a lot of sex with a lot of women – this means more sexual availability of the alphas, again, for the females who want to mate with them. It’s well known that males, even alpha males, will often not turn down free sex when offered – it is even *more* the case when males are bombarded with sexuality so that they have sex on the brain 24/7 – this increases the likelihood that alphas will mate with females they may otherwise not mate with, because their sexual desires and “needs” become exaggerated and seek outlets. It’s true that most men have quite active libidos by nature. What the hyper-sex culture does is take that natural libido and put it on steroids, by bombarding it with sexual imagery and messaging – basically it keeps male sexuality on the boil, which serves to enhance female power over men, and give more of them access to the men they want to mate with.

What happens to the non-alpha males in this situation? A lot of sexual frustration happens, as the culture hyper-sexualizes them (thus heightening their sexual desire), but then denies them sexual outlets. This can lead to things like rape and violence, but it more commonly leads to things like internet pornography addiction as the non-alphas who are not hooking up with the females turn to this kind of outlet to satisfy their intensified, now larger than life, sexual urges. So, in fact, the cycle is complete – the hypersexualized culture which feeds the increase in male sexual desire is then also used to sate that desire, which in turn enslaves men even more to their ever-increasing libidos. This is happening today at an *alarming* rate, as has been pointed out in a number of books and studies that have been done in the last five years and the skyrocketing figures for male sex addiction (in reality, male orgasm addiction, because most of it does not involve sex with anyone). If the trend continues, men will essentially be trading their power for easy access to orgasms.

--------------------

Of course, I am not suggesting that all human activity is determined by genetic coding. I don’t believe this to be the case. As I said at the outset above, social systems condition people to behave in certain ways as well. The current environment we live in still has features in it that exist due to the patriarchal system that society is moving away from. Institutions such as the monogamous marriage, for example, still exist, and women still participate in them, at least in some cases as enthusiastic participants. But nevertheless, the rules are slowly changing, as the facts on the ground change – more and more women are having children apart from monogamous marriage, as a matter of trending. And sexual behavior of the unmarried people – which has been trending steadily upward and is now are more than 50% of the population of the US, for example – is trending away from monogamy and towards a kind of loose polygamy where much of the mating activity involves alpha males.

And that, my friends, is the case against the widespread use of porn, hookers and other participation in the hyper-sex culture of today. Men are having their libidos stoked up, and then are being bamboozled into thinking it’s a good thing to have easy access to visual stimulation for regular orgasmic release – when in effect what is happening is that men are trading their power, and their integrity really, for easy access to orgasms. No male built civilization has ever condoned free sex, because to do so plays to our gender’s weakness, and also leads to us draining our energies away from other things that can benefit both ourselves and society as a whole. So while I’m not arguing in favor of puritanical values, it’s high time that men became aware of the reality that we are being bamboozled and disempowered by the current sex culture – and to take steps to take off the rose colored glasses, see things as they are, and restore our integrity, and our strength, by reasserting control over our own sexuality rather than allowing ourselves to become gradually enslaved by it.

=======================

Edit:

Some will argue that if this is, in fact, the case, why are so many feminists against porn and prostitution and the like. There are a couple of reasons for this. The first is that they are, in a way, trapped between some of the ideas of patriarchy that they claim to dislike, and the coming more matriarchal norm -- that is to say, they are still influenced by some of the patriarchal ideas about sexual self-control, the relative value of sex compared to other human pursuits and so forth, much more than they are willing to admit. A second reason is that a disproportionate number of the feminists who are advocating those perspectives are lesbian, and as such operate to a significant degree, apart from the female reproductive system in terms of using mating with males (rather than using frozen sperm) for reproduction -- so for these women, achieving that degree of sexual control over men is not relevant, because they do not plan to mate with men. A third reason is simply that many of these feminists are telescoping and putting the cart before the horse -- it may very well be that if society transitions to a true matriarchal system, that porn and hookers will go away, because they are no longer "needed" to transition the power structure away from men, and the matriarchal system will have developed other ways to control men; I think that some of these feminists who are anti-porn and anti-sex are putting the cart before the horse, in terms of trying to impose post-matriarchal norms while the civilization is still in the process of transitioning away from patriarchal norms.

**haahoo** · 30th-December-2008

Quote from novaseeker

The main vector of female power vis-à-vis men is access to sex. This is not a matter of politics, it is a matter of biology.

It has become more a matter of law than anything else now. The females main power is now her access to legal powers that provide her at the expense of men. The "sex" aspect is a subset of the true original power base of female reproductive resources, family life, etc.. It has been degraded to mechanical "sex" only relatively recently..

Genetically, women are encouraged to favor alpha males as mates to enhance the chance of having successful offspring.

Yes, whereas males are encouraged to roger everything that looks "nubile"..

A mating system that favors most females therefore is not one in which alpha male genes are monopolized by a few women, but a system where such genes are available to more women.

Arguable, because on the level of the individual woman, each woman wants exclusive access to an alpha if possible, the likelyhood is poor for most women, hence only a few "alpha male alpha female" partnerships are seen in reality.

The mating system that favours most women on the individual level would be a similar one to the one used by women who can do it, which is to have a child with a different alpha male each time, while keeping exclusivity of the alpha..

This would give them a greater genetic diversity in their offspring, but of course such a strategy is probably a disaster waiting to happen for the few women who actually seem to do this, low-status chavs for the many social reasons.. (and a few mega rich high-status bitches!)

So, the commonly accepted "con-trick" that females are genetically programmed to do is to claim an alpha male for fertilisation time, then, because they have no hope of keeping the alpha (and indeed many alphas are not the best "house-trained" of men) to take up with the "beta" male for the raising of the child..

Alpha males purpose is thus to provide the DNA, not the child rearing..

This is a natural fraud that has historically been foisted upon many men, which of course offends fathers, both biological and "cucked" and children, who dont know who their daddy is..

Hence, it is a risky strategy, but one that biology has historically seen as a good risk for females (prior to the DNA etc revolution..)

It is risky because of the social problems created when found out..

Since most alphas are happy to "fuck and chuck" casual breeders of lowly status, they are not usually in a hurry to complain..

Cucked fathers, however, do get rather upset at the idea of raising other mens kids..

All things being equal, it is therefore natural for women to prefer non-monogamy to monogamy, which is mainly why the women’s rights movement has walked in lockstep with the sexual revolution – the former is not fully possible, in terms of recasting the species reproduction system (which is at the core of femaleness in biological and genetic terms) in a way that benefits most women, without the latter.

**bachelor tom** · 30th-December-2008

Another way to look at the "hypersex culture" is as a continuation of soul-less materialism and the elevation of the pleasure principle. Since the West became de-facto rulers of the world in the 19th C we have steadily adopted aristocratic vices as normal.

History suggests that this kind of spiral of decadence is typical of elite end-states, partying themselves into oblivion.

**haahoo** · 30th-December-2008

Quote from bachelor tom

Another way to look at the "hypersex culture" is as a continuation of soul-less materialism and the elevation of the pleasure principle. Since the West became de-facto rulers of the world in the 19th C we have steadily adopted aristocratic vices as normal.

History suggests that this kind of spiral of decadence is typical of elite end-states, partying themselves into oblivion.

yip!

I think the west has lost its soul, lost its drive, and is running round with no real aim anymore, over indulged and ready for the wipout that is coming!

**novaseeker** · 30th-December-2008

Quote from haahoo

Have you seen the work of rob-fedders? his "no maam" blog goes into a fair bit of detail on similar points..

Yes I like his stuff -- good reading and resources there.

I fully agree that currently many women buy into monogamy very intensely. It's been the system for a long, long time, which is the social conditioning aspect that may have simply been trumping other genetic imperatives. It's also certainly true that for the women who manage to snag the alpha, monogamy is better --- because they get to monopolize his genes (in theory ... practice is likely that his genes *will* be shared with other women, whether known or not). My point is that non-monogamy is beneficial for the many women who are not able to monopolize an alpha (only so many to go around), but who can have access to his genes (in a licit way) if sexual and familial organization was organized in such a way that, for example, a group of females shared a much smaller group of alphas, or arrangements became common which otherwise allowed women to have sexual relations with more than one man at a time, some alphas some betas. Again, what's in it for men to play along? Access to orgasms, especially in the context of a culture which does not object to sexual license or widespread, free pornography. The main challenge would be enticing men to pay for the raising of children who are not their biological children. I could imagine this being enforced by some kind of law in the future -- whether men would go along with that probably depends on how things trend in the next several decades.

It's true that at some point that breaks down -- men seem programmed to want to spread their seed around to various females -- something which is often expressed as the need for sexual variety -- in truth something men and women both have, but which seems more prevalent in men. Seen in that light, offering men widespread, free porn could be viewed, from a matriarchal perspective, as a way to address perceived male needs for sexual variety without actually having these men breed with actual females.

Of course none of this will happen very quickly, and it will happen in ways that are almost certainly different from what I've outlined above. And at first at least it will be only happening on the fringes. But I do think that my main thrust -- the trends towards female empowerment as a result of the sexualization of the culture -- will be a leading story for the next few decades. Whether that translates into a more widespread abandonment of monogamy by women is a harder bet --- the women who have access to marrying alphas will not want that, because they will be the losers under that system, but the question is whether they will be swept away by a larger social trend that is beyond their control. Given how things appear to be trending in the culture, it's not far-fetched for me to imagine a world in the not so distant future where marriages are even rarer and more female led, non-monogamy is more normal for everyone else, and perhaps more open relationships exist, together with enforced child support (as we already have).

**brian44** · 30th-December-2008

Quote from novaseeker

Remember, women will, if given the choice, always choose alphas

That's not actually a universal truth. What makes evolution possible is random, natural, genetic variation. So although the majority would prefer alpha males, a few will prefer beta males at one end of the spectrum or alpha-alpha thugs (like violent criminals) at the other end of the spectrum. What women find attractive is also at least partly determined by her hormones. When she has children her hormones make her more likely to be attracted to beta males; before she has children she is more likely to be attracted to alpha males. It has also been suggested that the contraceptive pill, which affects female hormones will therefore affect what a woman finds attractive.

BTW, what you say about the hypersex culture and men, ignores that some men have very high sex drives already without external stimulation of porn. Before the Internet, men like that had to seek out their alternative outlets, they weren't exposed to them. What do you suggest men like that do if they can't get a woman?

**haahoo** · 30th-December-2008

Aye. I think that such ways of living will probably emerge and develop, but will co-exist with perhaps a renewed and re-formed "marraige" contract for the substantial number of folk who prize "traditional" values above the sexual free-for-all..

Already, in reality there is no real social sanctions applied against non-monogamy, polygamy is also practiced in reality, in fact, reality does show clearly that, effectively, we live in what is largely a sexual free for all if we want it..

Also, the fears men have about "raising bastards of other men" are no longer fears, they are a reality, because the state robs them anyway and hands it all to women..

What should be clear is that if we want to behave like indulgent primitive minded fools, the state will forever be needed to be more and more powerful in order to prevent the natural results of such lifestyles resulting in much worse social disorder.

There will come a point were it is not able to sustain, which I predict will not take too long..

**haahoo** · 30th-December-2008

Quote from brian44

BTW, what you say about the hypersex culture and men, ignores that some men have very high sex drives already without external stimulation of porn. Before the Internet, men like that had to seek out their alternative outlets, they weren't exposed to them. What do you suggest men like that do if they can't get a woman?

haha!

I used to be quite oversexed, but I guess these days it is the norm to have sex with double digit numbers of women in a week..

This was at a time when there was no internet, none of that dating site stuff etc..

I liked porn, but more, I liked real axewound and was a bit of a dicksmith, always looking for a slice of pie when I had a free moment, (usually when I should have been asleep)..

I had many folk offer me suggestions as what i could do, and it came down to just excercising self-discipline in the end..

I got married. That sorted me out for a while!! Had access to a quality firebox and was happy enough to poke that 5 times a day.. (In additonal to wanking myself silly over porn most of the rest of the time!)

For sure though, the internet porn has very much REDUCED the demand for whores etc, and for my money (which is none, because its free!) it definately disempowers women greatly that we blokes can crank out satans tadpoles over digital cock-fodder instead of having to risk disease and disgrace with them!

**novaseeker** · 30th-December-2008

Quote from brian44

That's not actually a universal truth. What makes evolution possible is random, natural, genetic variation. So although the majority would prefer alpha males, a few will prefer beta males at one end of the spectrum or alpha-alpha thugs (like violent criminals) at the other end of the spectrum. What women find attractive is also at least partly determined by her hormones. When she has children her hormones make her more likely to be attracted to beta males; before she has children she is more likely to be attracted to alpha males. It has also been suggested that the contraceptive pill, which affects female hormones will therefore affect what a woman finds attractive.

These are solid and important points, I agree.

BTW, what you say about the hypersex culture and men, ignores that some men have very high sex drives already without external stimulation of porn. Before the Internet, men like that had to seek out their alternative outlets, they weren't exposed to them. What do you suggest men like that do if they can't get a woman?

It's certainly hard. I'm not at all against masturbation, nor at all am I in favor of actually banning porn -- I see it more as an issue of self-discipline. So, for example, use porn less often -- try to discipline yourself to use it less, become less reliant on it and so forth. We're sexual beings with libidos and we'll need our sexual releases as a result of that. But I think we can also discipline ourselves a bit, which will lessen the impact of the hypersexual culture on us -- even those of us with prodigious natural libidos.

Of course, I am a realist, and I don't expect that this will actually happen. I think most men will keep on using porn as a sexual outlet because, as you say, many men don't have access to other outlets, and porn is just so ubiquitous. In the medium term, though, I think this plays in women's favor.

**haahoo** · 30th-December-2008

Quote from novaseeker

It's certainly hard. I'm not at all against masturbation, nor at all am I in favor of actually banning porn -- I see it more as an issue of self-discipline. So, for example, use porn less often -- try to discipline yourself to use it less, become less reliant on it and so forth. We're sexual beings with libidos and we'll need our sexual releases as a result of that. But I think we can also discipline ourselves a bit, which will lessen the impact of the hypersexual culture on us -- even those of us with prodigious natural libidos.

Of course, I am a realist, and I don't expect that this will actually happen. I think most men will keep on using porn as a sexual outlet because, as you say, many men don't have access to other outlets, and porn is just so ubiquitous. In the medium term, though, I think this plays in women's favor.

Encouraging self-discipline is a good idea on many levels, including this one..

It would be no exaggeration to say that I have tossed my adult life so far into the sexual toilet and probably exhausted a whole rainforest in mopping the mess off my keyboard with the kleenex!

Porn is safe, as over-doing it with real women can cause problems, such as getting locked up etc..

If you ever watch those porn films and you look at guys who are snaking some hot looking megafish, and you think "why does he look so bored?"..

because when you overdo it, it is just like that..

I hardly ever enjoy sex now, its a "duty" and I often refer to it as that, which women find hilarious!!

So i then have to fuck them..

**oni** · 31st-December-2008

Quote from brian44

It has also been suggested that the contraceptive pill, which affects female hormones will therefore affect what a woman finds attractive.

Birth Control Pills Affect Women's Taste

Studies suggest that females prefer the scent of males whose MHC genes differ from their own, a preference that has probably evolved because it helps offspring survive ... A study published in August in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, however, suggests that women on the pill undergo a shift in preference toward men who share similar MHC genes.

MHC stands for major histocompatibility complex. Basically, it means which kind of immune system you have. The study referred to above was done by a Claus Wedekind, who is famous for a study he did a few decades ago where he found that women could actually smell MHC.

If you're at all interested in psychology or evolutionary biology, you've probably heard of this study. Basically, Wedekind took t-shirts from a bunch of guys and gave them to women to smell. He asked the women, "which smells do you like the best?" Then the women got meet the guys and he asked them, "which guy was the most attractive?" Not only was there a correlation - meaning, the women picked the same guy both times, but women tended to pick men with different MHC genes than their own.

So let's say there's a Windows MHC and a Mac MHC. If you're a woman walking around with a Windows immune system, you prefer guys with the Mac version, and vice versa. Like I said, this is a famous, and really amazing and fascinating study on a number of levels. I mean, where does free will fit into this if we are, apparently, just following some master plan of natural selection. But more apropos to the thread, I think you really have to factor this into anything you say about alpha males. There is no one guy that is attractive to all women.

Anyway, the article I linked above is talking about a more recent finding that Brian44 was alluding to. Women on birth control pills have the opposite MHC preference, the same preference they would have if pregnant. From an evolutionary biology perspective, this makes perfect sense. When you're trying to get pregnant, you want a guy with different MHC genes, because a) this guy is not related to you and b) this will make your children more diverse and thus better able to survive. So women have an instinct to go "outside the tribe" and find a man. But when you are pregnant, your tribe will protect you, and you need that protection, so women have an instinct that makes their own tribe suddenly seem more attractive, and women probably start flirting with their uncles and cousins, and in that way, they buy resources and protection.

Unfortunately for you and I, a lot of women that you meet while dating are already on the pill. So if they find you attractive now, they wont find you attractive when they go off the pill after you get married. This could be the reason for a lot of divorces.

**haahoo** · 31st-December-2008

Quote from oni

Birth Control Pills Affect Women's Taste

Studies suggest that females prefer the scent of males whose MHC genes differ from their own, a preference that has probably evolved because it helps offspring survive ... A study published in August in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, however, suggests that women on the pill undergo a shift in preference toward men who share similar MHC genes.

MHC stands for major histocompatibility complex. Basically, it means which kind of immune system you have. The study referred to above was done by a Claus Wedekind, who is famous for a study he did a few decades ago where he found that women could actually smell MHC.

If you're at all interested in psychology or evolutionary biology, you've probably heard of this study. Basically, Wedekind took t-shirts from a bunch of guys and gave them to women to smell. He asked the women, "which smells do you like the best?" Then the women got meet the guys and he asked them, "which guy was the most attractive?" Not only was there a correlation - meaning, the women picked the same guy both times, but women tended to pick men with different MHC genes than their own.

So let's say there's a Windows MHC and a Mac MHC. If you're a woman walking around with a Windows immune system, you prefer guys with the Mac version, and vice versa. Like I said, this is a famous, and really amazing and fascinating study on a number of levels. I mean, where does free will fit into this if we are, apparently, just following some master plan of natural selection. But more apropos to the thread, I think you really have to factor this into anything you say about alpha males. There is no one guy that is attractive to all women.

Anyway, the article I linked above is talking about a more recent finding that Brian44 was alluding to. Women on birth control pills have the opposite MHC preference, the same preference they would have if pregnant. From an evolutionary biology perspective, this makes perfect sense. When you're trying to get pregnant, you want a guy with different MHC genes, because a) this guy is not related to you and b) this will make your children more diverse and thus better able to survive. So women have an instinct to go "outside the tribe" and find a man. But when you are pregnant, your tribe will protect you, and you need that protection, so women have an instinct that makes their own tribe suddenly seem more attractive, and women probably start flirting with their uncles and cousins, and in that way, they buy resources and protection.

Unfortunately for you and I, a lot of women that you meet while dating are already on the pill. So if they find you attractive now, they wont find you attractive when they go off the pill after you get married. This could be the reason for a lot of divorces.

Yip. The BC pill fucks up women in many ways.. It is not good. I would never consider a woman who takes the pill as they are not genuine, not truly functioning as they should, never have considered them and never will..

My breeding stock is usually women who have recently stopped taking the pill and for some odd reason have decided that they are not longer attracted to the bloke they were taking it for!!

Another fact about the pill is that it reduces the female libido, which is kinda odd when you think what it is being taken for?

Good methods of contraception for women I would include as the coil, or the blowjob..

**Percy** · 31st-December-2008

I tire sometimes with all this focus on sex. Alpha males indeed ! Hah.

There is ONE key issue that gets missed.

Do you have a genetic heritage, or does a genetic heritage have you?

Does your genetic heritage push you willy nilly wherever it wants, or do YOU determine what aspects are useful in any specific circumstance?

Does a friggin' programmed robot wear your trousers, or do YOU decide what you are doing and have a sound reason?

There is a lot more to life than dipping wicks.

**haahoo** · 31st-December-2008

Quote from Percy

I tire sometimes with all this focus on sex. Alpha males indeed ! Hah.

There is ONE key issue that gets missed.

Do you have a genetic heritage, or does a genetic heritage have you?

Does your genetic heritage push you willy nilly wherever it wants, or do YOU determine what aspects are useful in any specific circumstance?

Does a friggin' programmed robot wear your trousers, or do YOU decide what you are doing and have a sound reason?

There is a lot more to life than dipping wicks.

Your right percy. We as human beings are capable of so much more, but, we live in a society that when we do that "more" we just get kicked down..

Many young men are focused on sex, they follow the lead of those who chant "dont marry, dont settle down" they see the devasted men of divorce..

They equate "settled" relationships with danger, but, they still want intimacy, or sex..

So much of everything that drives men and woman of breeding age is about sex..

The problems and results of bad choices..

Its not all glamour is it?

**shaazam** · 31st-December-2008

with the current marriage contract nothing but a shell game to dupe sincere men why should they not wank instead to the internet gals

those virtual gals don't have access to the manifold benefits of the Family Court rip off rulings and the guy can always change the sex site for new smiling gals and their shaved pussies

as a young man I spent most my wages on hookers and beside getting the clap a few times I emerged twenty years later with my retirement pay intact which I collected as cash when the company shed staff ( downsizing)

I still believe most wimmin are sisters if they stand on their head

summary - it is better to rent highly depreciating commodities viz ({}) than to buy

rider - I married eventually but with a broad understanding of wimmins values - that which motivates them to the extreme ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$)