Filipinas - Opinions and Advice

[Red Kilt]

This is well written, treats a complex topic with humour and is actually a pretty easy read so reading 300 pages was not a big deal for me. (book is just over 400 pages but I skipped the notes and references).

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.

[Blanquiceleste]

Sounds like it was one of those books "you just can't put down. " With some novels it's because the storyline is so intense that you keep turning pages. With this book it's because the thesis gives you justification for marital infidelity and all your intense desire to root around in as many crevices as possible. Nobody can put down a book that so thoroughly justifies your worst behaviors that the women in your life always condemned.

In case you do not want spend mongering funds on books.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B35C...xrdW5oYzA/edit

[Kabul Guy]

Sounds like it was one of those books "you just can't put down. " With some novels it's because the storyline is so intense that you keep turning pages. With this book it's because the thesis gives you justification for marital infidelity and all your intense desire to root around in as many crevices as possible. Nobody can put down a book that so thoroughly justifies your worst behaviors that the women in your life always condemned.

It's more that I am just a voracious reader. I'll typically read a couple hundred pages in a day.

This is well written, treats a complex topic with humour and is actually a pretty easy read so reading 300 pages was not a big deal for me. (book is just over 400 pages but I skipped the notes and references).

FWIW, I was married for 35 years and never cheated on my wife, not even a HJ in a massage place until we formally split up.

[Soapy Smith]

Just finished reading the book. I downloaded it from Amazon and read it on Kindle.

Sounds like it was one of those books "you just can't put down. " With some novels it's because the storyline is so intense that you keep turning pages. With this book it's because the thesis gives you justification for marital infidelity and all your intense desire to root around in as many crevices as possible. Nobody can put down a book that so thoroughly justifies your worst behaviors that the women in your life always condemned.

[Kabul Guy]

One claim made in the book was that a male would have his sexual preferences fixed at an early stage in life while a woman's preferences would be more fluid throughout her life.

My first sexual encounter was at age 15 with a very slightly built girl. She was Caucasian but had a body shape similar to the nice slim pinas we meet here. She was 4'10". I lost all contact with her after high school but even the last time I saw her she was at 18 still 4'10 slim like a pina. Guess we know why I'm here LOL.

The book got me thinking about her almost 50 years later. I had no idea of her married name but asked Mr Google if he knew where she was. She has a very distinctive first and maiden name. I found an obituary of her mother that listed her with her married name, siblings all checked out so I knew it was her, she still lived in the same town.

This lead to her FB page. She is still 4'10" tall, just she is also 4'10" wide too.

Should have left my memories intact. LOL.

[Soapy Smith]

It still reflects that the main motive of humans is to propagate their genetic diversity it just does it in a more communal method where the emphasis is the survival and propagation of the group rather than the individual. Since the individuals genetic material is dispersed throughout the group, the death of any one member will not necessarily result in the ending of their genetic line. All children are cared for, thus the communal nature of the group will be the insurance policy of any one individual succumbing to accident or disease, allowing propagation of their genetic material to future generations.

Referred to by some as the "unselfish gene. " The gene doesn't care if I pass it along or my brother does.

[Kabul Guy]

I confess to cribbing my explanation from this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stra...1&keywords=sex+before+dawn.

In the event the moderator deletes the link, the book's short title is **Sex at Dawn* by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha. He has a PhD in psychology from an institution in your neck of the woods, and she is a psychiatrist trained in Portugal (or maybe India). ......

Just finished reading the book. I downloaded it from Amazon and read it on Kindle.

The basic idea is that the standard model of humans being basically monogamous with the economic decision being made on mating is flawed and not supported by the evidence. The standard model is that men look for suitable child bearing women and women look for suitable providers.

The book makes the claim that this model is "Flinstoneized" that is tainted with our post agricultural ideals of the nuclear family and property values. We are viewing prehistoric humans like a "modern Stone Age family". The standard model imposes present day morality on the past as justification of present day morals and actions.

In hunter gathers societies, which make up the majority of human history and evolution, the norm was for more communal groupings. They had no concept of property ownership and all wealth and all hardships were communal. Under this model, a child had multiple care givers so the idea pf paternity was not as important. Sex was used as a means of fostering relationships, community and recreation. In these societies there was no concept of property at all, let alone that women were property, and hence no jealousy or long term monogamous relationships.

Also without property to pass along the parental lineage, there was really no need to definitively establish parentage. Some tribes viewed a child not as the product of one man's sperm but that a child composed of the better qualities of the semen of many men, so a woman would have sex with the best hunter, the best craftsman, the best story teller etc. In the group in the hopes that the child would have qualities of all the "fathers".

While I acknowledge that they are selling an idea and it is human nature to overemphasize what supports them while being dismissive of that that does not, I find that their arguments and evidence is somewhat compelling. It still reflects that the main motive of humans is to propagate their genetic diversity it just does it in a more communal method where the emphasis is the survival and propagation of the group rather than the individual. Since the individuals genetic material is dispersed throughout the group, the death of any one member will not necessarily result in the ending of their genetic line. All children are cared for, thus the communal nature of the group will be the insurance policy of any one individual succumbing to accident or disease, allowing propagation of their genetic material to future generations.

Their model does provide a better explanation for human behaviors; it does not undermine the idea that our desires and how we act had a hard wired component that is filtered through the society and culture that we live in.

It is a good read, well written and entertaining. I recommend anyone interested in evolutionary physiology to read this.

[D Cups]

I confess to cribbing my explanation from this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stra...1&keywords=sex+before+dawn.

In the event the moderator deletes the link, the book's short title is **Sex at Dawn* by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha. He has a PhD in psychology from an institution in your neck of the woods, and she is a psychiatrist trained in Portugal (or maybe India). They are married. I think this work is an extension of his doctoral dissertation. They offer lots of references to original sources and to various anthropological studies. Their core argument is that monogamy is not inherent in human nature; rather, humans, like our closest primate relatives, bonobo chimpanzees, are fundamentally polyamorous. Marriage is a human-induced institution, and the onset of sedentary agriculture and private land ownership is what induced the institution. The book has 896 reviews on Amazon, with a mean score of 4. 3 out of 5. Amazon reviews are not synonymous with scientific evidence, but this score suggests that a lot of readers found the book useful.

Much of what KG describes from another source, and the stuff ET is describing, including the bit about genetic hard-wiring, is consistent with what Ryan and Jetha report.

Thanks, Soapy. I majored in sociology as an undergrad some years ago and find this interesting. As stated, we men are not inclined to monogamy hence the ISG for the sexually adventurous, the deplorable rate of divorce and infidelity for the formerly married, and the generally low level of happiness among the currently married which seems to only decline with time.

Cheers.

[Goferring]

I've been told by some girls that the locals are strictly roll on / roll off, much like the ferries. That can't be much fun for women interesting in exploring their own sexuality.

GE.

Many of the Board have argued the opposite: that this is why a lot of girls have sidedicks who are fit, young, trike drivers. The ability to pump out multiple short sessions per night is a big plus in an environment where privacy is non existent.

I could certainly see your view being valid where the girl has the ability to explore her own sexuality and satisfaction.

I know I've met both cases: girls that are keen to go all night and others that prefer to wake you up repeatedly for multiple sessions. Then again, maybe they are just telling me what I want to hear😁.

[GoodEnough]

That is nurture and dammed lucky for guys like me. LOL Since I am removed from my culture and the impact of nurture, I can have sex with women young enough to be my granddaughter because the impacts of nurture are much lessened.

An interesting discussion. Just to add another factor, it may be that Western guys learn, after a while at least, how to give as good as they get. I've been told by some girls that the locals are strictly roll on / roll off, much like the ferries. That can't be much fun for women interesting in exploring their own sexuality.

GE.

[Kabul Guy]

.....
So perhaps biology is overpowering the traditional constraints to which women were taught they needed to adhere. Women's capacity for multiple orgasms and shorter refractory time than we men experience suggest they may be potentially more sexually voracious than men. Great stuff, huh?

The question is to what degree does nurture, I. E. Cultural restraints and social norms, restrict the nature, the biologically hard wired desires. I think that the answer is it depends on the individual and their desire to fit into their society.

Pinna women like all women enjoy sex, that is nature. , They hesitate to have it with locals because of the possibility of their friends, family and neighbors finding out so will have sex with foreigners. That is nurture and dammed lucky for guys like me. LOL Since I am removed from my culture and the impact of nurture, I can have sex with women young enough to be my granddaughter because the impacts of nurture are much lessened.

[Soapy Smith]

Sorry I couldn't get your message. I have now cleaned out the clutter.

Most of what I put in my PM is now in my two previous posts.

[Soapy Smith]

Been a while since I read the book so I cannot say if it is in there, but I have read about that as well somewhere. The woman wants kids from another man in case there is some hidden flaw in the man's genetic offerings (or a combination of two regressive genes that means trouble for the offspring later in life) that will hurt her chances of propagating her genetic material.

She wants it to maintain the illusion that the mate's genes are the ones so she has a provider for the other man's kids.

But if the process is hard-wired, does the woman really "want" kids from the other man for these reasons? Is it a conscious thought process, or just humans acting out their biological urges? Are they really any more aware than female song birds are about why they are going around screwing other males while the "mate for life" is gathering twigs for the nest? When we go around dipping our ends in a variety of honey pots, are we consciously trying to expand the gene pool, or just following the hard-wiring of our libidos? I was clipped nearly 40 years ago, my libido hasn't slipped very much over that time, and I am damn sure not expanding my gene pool.

The monogamy thing, although it has an origin in human institutions, has also been sustained by religious institutions and the social and "moral" web that they weave. Monogamy and its propagation is one of the few justifications for institutional religion to exist. And therefore they have an incentive to promote monogamous marriage. They want children they can reliably socialize, not heathen kids wandering the streets spreading their seed all over the community.

The relaxation that women are feeling about exploring casual sex, as you and ET describe, is evidenced by the reports that women are giving about increasing numbers of sex partners and adulterous affairs. There are some interesting studies in which men and women are asked to report the numbers of sex partners they've had. Then the experimenters tell them in the next stage they will be connected to a lie detector and asked many of the same questions. The second time around, men's reports about sexual partners decrease and women's increase. It seems to me this reflects what the sexes have been taught about the acceptability of sexual experimentation.

So perhaps biology is overpowering the traditional constraints to which women were taught they needed to adhere. Women's capacity for multiple orgasms and shorter refractory time than we men experience suggest they may be potentially more sexually voracious than men. Great stuff, huh?

[GoodEnough]

I confess to cribbing my explanation from this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stra...1&keywords=sex+before+dawn.

In the event the moderator deletes the link, the book's short title is **Sex at Dawn* by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha. He has a PhD in psychology from an institution in your neck of the woods, and she is a psychiatrist trained in Portugal (or maybe India). They are married. I think this work is an extension of his doctoral dissertation. They offer lots of references to original sources and to various anthropological studies. Their core argument is that monogamy in not inherent in human nature; rather, humans, like our closest primate relatives, bonobo chimpanzees, are fundamentally polyamorous. Marriage is a human-induced institution, and the onset of sedentary agriculture and private land ownership is what induced the institution. The book has 896 reviews on Amazon, with a mean score of 4. 3 out of 5. Amazon reviews are not synonymous with scientific evidence, but this score suggests that a lot of readers found the book useful.

Much of what KG describes from another source is consistent with what Ryan and Jetha report.

Sorry I couldn't get your message. I have now cleaned out the clutter.

There are also lots of sociological explanation for marriage as a convention for social control and, once religion had been invented in its various permutations, as a way of sexual / reproductive control as well. There's nothing congenital about any of the explanations and in one way or another the institution was developed by humans and doubtless of a variety of reasons.

GE.

[Soapy Smith]

OK perhaps I am wrong then. I assume you have some historical, sociological and / or anthropological evidence to back this up?

I confess to cribbing my explanation from this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stra...1&keywords=sex+before+dawn.

In the event the moderator deletes the link, the book's short title is **Sex at Dawn* by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha. He has a PhD in psychology from an institution in your neck of the woods, and she is a psychiatrist trained in Portugal (or maybe India). They are married. I think this work is an extension of his doctoral dissertation. They offer lots of references to original sources and to various anthropological studies. Their core argument is that monogamy is not inherent in human nature; rather, humans, like our closest primate relatives, bonobo chimpanzees, are fundamentally polyamorous. Marriage is a human-induced institution, and the onset of sedentary agriculture and private land ownership is what induced the institution. The book has 896 reviews on Amazon, with a mean score of 4. 3 out of 5. Amazon reviews are not synonymous with scientific evidence, but this score suggests that a lot of readers found the book useful.

Much of what KG describes from another source, and the stuff ET is describing, including the bit about genetic hard-wiring, is consistent with what Ryan and Jetha report.