Filipinas - Opinions and Advice

[Mr Enternational]

I have to ask. What is the wife doing while hubby is on these excursions?

Why does it matter what the wife is doing? As long as she is meeting her responsibilities in the relationship then who cares? One thing I would never do is ask a woman to do something that I would not do myself (well besides anal maybe.) If you can give it, then you have to be just as willing to take it (no pun intended).

When I find out a chick broke up with her man because he was cheating I like to ask a few questions. Did he stop paying the bills? Did he stop doing his chores? Did he stop doing his responsibilities with the family? If the answer is yes to any of those then she needed to leave him. If the answer is no to any of them then I tell her she is a dumb bih for breaking up just because he stuck his dick into another hole. So you were willing to lose all the other shit that made you happy and comfortable because of your significant other fucked someone else? People are stupid sometimes.

A couple days ago, a female coworker was saying she went through her fiance's phone to find out if he was cheating. She said they had broken up for a while before because she saw he was writing messages to another chick. I told her if she was looking for something then she will find it. And that cheating is the glue that holds relationships together. You gotta get out there every now and then to see how fucked up things are in order to know how good you have it at home.

[Mr Enternational]

Nice Guy and others for that matter.

Can you elaborate on the statement, "In my case my wife knows I have relationships overseas. "? How did you pull this off? This seems like the best of both worlds. A wife as home base and a hot new thing for a little excursion. I envy your situation. Looking for details and / or coaching here.

- Hootas.

There is nothing to pull off. It is called honesty. I have been messing with this chick that works at the mall in Pattaya for about 1 year. Last week she tells me she is going out for her friend's birthday. While she is partying, she sent me a picture of her and her friend. The friend looked pretty familiar, but I could not be sure. So I asked if the friend worked with her. She said no and that she works in massage.

So then I was pretty sure it was a chick that I started messing with last month. Plus I thought remembered her telling me something about her birthday. So when the first chick got home she sent me a message saying she was drunk. I asked her if Ploy was drunk too. She said how you know her name. I said because I know her.

Then she started asking questions like if I fucked her. I told her that she was asking too many questions then I just told her yes. She said the girl was a good friend of hers and they have known each other 10 years. I said well keep it in the family I guess. She said she was sad but not angry and as long as I was happy then it was fine with her.

She also said that the friend told her we had not been together. I told her I did not know why she would lie and told her exactly how I met her on Tinder and went to her shop to get a massage and picked her up after work and she stayed with me.

Ploy was a little different. She tried to play that role like she was hurt. What she didn't know was that the other girl had already inadvertently told me she had a boyfriend. (While the first girl was at the disco she said that her friend went home because her boyfriend called.) So she did not have a leg to stand on. She said that she would not see me again and that she was sorry that she did her boyfriend wrong. I told her that she would see me again and that her friend was fine with it. I knew that if she really did not want to see me again then she would not have kept talking to me.

My brother said that he would not have told her. I told him that I am a player. The day that I starr being scared of losing a chick will probably be the day that I start losing them.

Then there is my new chick in Manila that tried to tie me down. I just had to explain it to her (last screen shot). That made all the difference in the world. So just stop being full of shit and be honest with people for a change. (I guess it helps to have a little game too!) The results may surprise you.

[Kabul Guy]

.....

Can you elaborate on the statement, "In my case my wife knows I have relationships overseas. "? How did you pull this off? This seems like the best of both worlds. A wife as home base and a hot new thing for a little excursion........

I have to ask. What is the wife doing while hubby is on these excursions?

[Hootas]

You're on the right track. I'm married to a girl 25 years younger than me. Wonderful caring relationship and great sex but I still have a roving eye on my international business trips.
.
.
.
My advice to you is to enjoy your young friend to the max. Make sure your eyes are wide open as they now seem to be. There will / may come a time when she asks for big money. Be ready to amicably walk away. In your case you should probably insulate her from info about your wife and family. In my case my wife knows I have relationships overseas.

Enjoy!

Nice Guy and others for that matter.

Can you elaborate on the statement, "In my case my wife knows I have relationships overseas. "? How did you pull this off? This seems like the best of both worlds. A wife as home base and a hot new thing for a little excursion. I envy your situation. Looking for details and / or coaching here.

- Hootas.

[Blanquiceleste]

Sundays and holidays off? That's 6 weeks and a day or 43 days by the regular calendar. Subtract All Saints Day and 6 Sundays and you get 36 days to go.

QED LOL.

Dang! This girl is wiser than I thought. Maybe I should take some math lessons from her next time.

[Kabul Guy]

The concept of "Mate Guarding" also started with males not trusting with females' hypergamy (dual sexual strategy of Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks) while they were out gathering food or provisioning for shelter / other needs as they wanted to be sure if the child was theirs (and not someone else's). More details in the book series of 'Rational Male' for those interested.

According to Sex at Dawn, in a hunter gather society where everything was shared, parentage was irrelevant because parentage only became relevant with the agricultural society and the concept of property to be inherited.

My biggest complaint with Sex at Dawn is that they quickly discount all evolutionary changes since the dawn of the agricultural age. They rather dismissively say that 20,000 years since agriculture is simply too short to be relevant. However humans can evolve quicker than that. I once read an estimate that it would be between 5,000 and 10,000 years for a population to achieve the "correct" skin colour for the environment if they moved from the north to the equator or the other way around. There is evidence that agriculture existed 23,000 years ago, not 20 k as they state. Small difference but it does show that they may have cherry picked their data a little. Of course agriculture developed over a long time, it did not spring up fuly in a short period of time.

[Kabul Guy]

...

Now go figure how 24 Sep to 05 Nov is only 36 days.

Sundays and holidays off? That's 6 weeks and a day or 43 days by the regular calendar. Subtract All Saints Day and 6 Sundays and you get 36 days to go.

QED LOL.

[GoodEnough]

It was an extension of Ryan's doctoral dissertation, so of course it wanders around. That's how those guys are. People get paid to wander around like that.

I know. I used to get paid to wander around like that. Still, it's an interesting thesis and since it's consistent with my own confirmation bias, I accept it pretty readily. I find it interesting (and somewhat depressing) to think of how oppressive social strictures can force post-industrial socieities into collective cognitive dissonance. Virtually all of our socio-cultural standards pertaining to sexuality and marriage appear to be at odds with our biological imperatives. No wonder Americans are so screwed up about sex.

GE.

[Soapy Smith]

I do like the discursive, irreverent style and the quick summaries of the gist of prior research, though I think the book's overall point could have been made more succinctly. GE.

It was an extension of Ryan's doctoral dissertation, so of course it wanders around. That's how those guys are. People get paid to wander around like that.

[Soapy Smith]

The only real commonality between the two is that they both state that our desires are genetically hard wired and supported by physical manifestations caused by genetic selection over evolutionary time frames.

And this is sociobiology. Notice that I said they "share a lot." The core of sociobiology is that the social webs that humans create are driven by their biology. Both these books are fundamentally sociobiological, although they disagree about the origins of monogamy. Morris' contention that monogamy permitted hunters to trust leaving their mates behind always seemed to me like a speculative leap of faith. How, after all, without reliable means of genetic testing, was the hunter to detect or enforce his mate's fidelity? How hard would it have been to sneak out in the woods and get it on with the mate of your neighbor who will be gone hunting for a day or more? The thesis in **Sex at Dawn** makes more sense to me. And maybe I want to believe it, for the reasons GE suggests.

I think most people treat Morris as a sociobiologist, but the **Naked Ape** may be more of a 50 year old splash that was long on speculation and short on evidence. It's possible **Sex at Dawn** will be viewed this way in the future.

I started to write some stuff about the more prominent sociobiologist, E. O. Wilson, and then remembered that this a forum about sex with Filipinas.

[WiseHustler]

I got the book yesterday and I'm about at the halfway point. It does an excellent job refuting the common wisdom of inherent pair bonding, and on pointing out the confirmation bias underlying a substantial body of anthropological research. Maybe the reason it's receiving so much attention on this forum is that it provides a solid rationale for all of us to indulge in the behaviors that we enjoy.

I do like the discursive, irreverent style and the quick summaries of the gist of prior research, though I think the book's overall point could have been made more succinctly. Nonetheless, it's a fun, easy read.

GE.

The concept of "Mate Guarding" also started with males not trusting with females' hypergamy (dual sexual strategy of Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks) while they were out gathering food or provisioning for shelter / other needs as they wanted to be sure if the child was theirs (and not someone else's). More details in the book series of 'Rational Male' for those interested.

[GoodEnough]

Actually it is the opposite. Sex at Dawn opposes the standard evolutionary physiology model that human pair bonding is innate. This is exactly what Naked Ape proposes.

For example, Morris wrote that the intense human pair bond evolved so that men who were out hunting could trust that their mates back home were not having sex with other men,:

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Ape.

However Sex at Dawn Postulates "In opposition to what the authors see as the "standard narrative" of human sexual evolution, they contend that having multiple sexual partners was common and accepted in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness. Mobile self-contained groups of hunter gatherers are posited as the human norm before agriculture led to high population density. According to the authors, before agriculture, sex was relatively promiscuous, and paternity was not a concern, in a similar way to the mating system of Bonobos. According to the book, sexual interactions strengthened the bond of trust in the groups; far from causing jealousy, social equilibrium and reciprocal obligation was strengthened by playful sexual interactions. ".

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_at_Dawn.

The only real commonality between the two is that they both state that our desires are genetically hard wired and supported by physical manifestations caused by genetic selection over evolutionary time frames.

Sex at Dawn refers to a process that they call "Flinstonization" That is projecting our current cultural adaption of pair bonding to prehistoric humans who were pre agricultural and had no concept of property, parenthood and genetic lineage I. E. Making the prehistoric humans the modern stone age family. They postulate that the rise of agricultural societies made humans develop a concept of property (including women as property that needed to be protected from other males) and that this made parentage important so that property could be passed to offspring.

I got the book yesterday and I'm about at the halfway point. It does an excellent job refuting the common wisdom of inherent pair bonding, and on pointing out the confirmation bias underlying a substantial body of anthropological research. Maybe the reason it's receiving so much attention on this forum is that it provides a solid rationale for all of us to indulge in the behaviors that we enjoy.

I do like the discursive, irreverent style and the quick summaries of the gist of prior research, though I think the book's overall point could have been made more succinctly. Nonetheless, it's a fun, easy read.

GE.

[Blanquiceleste]

Meanwhile in other news, I have the Filipina from Cebu who wrote to me this morning. An excerpt.

Girl: Good morning honey. I go province on 05 November.

Me: Great. But that is quite some time away. How you make plan so early?

Girl: Not much time. Only 36 days left.

Me: Oh! OK. Good luck.

Now go figure how 24 Sep to 05 Nov is only 36 days.

[Kabul Guy]

The book shares a lot with Desmond Morris' thesis .....

Actually it is the opposite. Sex at Dawn opposes the standard evolutionary physiology model that human pair bonding is innate. This is exactly what Naked Ape proposes.

For example, Morris wrote that the intense human pair bond evolved so that men who were out hunting could trust that their mates back home were not having sex with other men,:

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Ape.

However Sex at Dawn Postulates "In opposition to what the authors see as the "standard narrative" of human sexual evolution, they contend that having multiple sexual partners was common and accepted in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness. Mobile self-contained groups of hunter gatherers are posited as the human norm before agriculture led to high population density. According to the authors, before agriculture, sex was relatively promiscuous, and paternity was not a concern, in a similar way to the mating system of Bonobos. According to the book, sexual interactions strengthened the bond of trust in the groups; far from causing jealousy, social equilibrium and reciprocal obligation was strengthened by playful sexual interactions. ".

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_at_Dawn.

The only real commonality between the two is that they both state that our desires are genetically hard wired and supported by physical manifestations caused by genetic selection over evolutionary time frames.

Sex at Dawn refers to a process that they call "Flinstonization" That is projecting our current cultural adaption of pair bonding to prehistoric humans who were pre agricultural and had no concept of property, parenthood and genetic lineage I. E. Making the prehistoric humans the modern stone age family. They postulate that the rise of agricultural societies made humans develop a concept of property (including women as property that needed to be protected from other males) and that this made parentage important so that property could be passed to offspring.

[Soapy Smith]

I have not read this book yet but I recall the publication of The Naked Ape: A Zoologist's Study of the Human Animal in1967 book by Desmond Morris.

Also a pretty easy read but the key ideas are still being challenged in various forums. It looked at humans as a species and then compared their behaviour to that of other animals.

I am assuming this book is an extension of that thesis.

The book shares a lot with Desmond Morris' thesis, but is much more focused on human sexuality. The evidence and argument is based both on the anthropology of "primitive" foraging groups of humans (of which there are apparently a few still in existence in the world), and on the biological study of sex organs, sperm and eggs, and so on.

There is some comparison to other species, largely to show how other species are fundamentally polyamorous. The principal comparison is to bonobo chimps, who unlike the common chimp and gorillas, are polyamorous, with females typically initiating recreational sex openly with a variety of males. In this way the female bonobos seem to control violence in the group. In common chimps, by comparison, sex is principally for mating, dominated by the silver back alpha male, and often the source of violence for dominance among the males. The central thesis of **Sex at Dawn** is that monogamy is not inherent or innate in humans and other animals.

I have read that **Sex at Dawn** has been well received by sexologists, but the reception has been more mixed from anthropologists and primatologists. I believe Desmond Morris is a sociobiologist in the mold of E. O. Wilson. There have been various criticisms of sociobiology, especially that it overemphasizes biology at the expense of social origins of behavior. Daniel Pinker, who has written about the decline of violence in the world (he offers a lot of evidence), suggests that much of the criticism of sociobiology is political and ideological. **Sex at Dawn** is essentially sociobiology. I assume a similar ideological criticism is being mounted against it: that it can be interpreted as justifying infidelity and casual sex.