Filipinas - Opinions and Advice

[QUOTE=SoapySmith;2226069].....
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?[/QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE=KabulGuy;2226088] 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.[/QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE=GoodEnough;2226118]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.[/QUOTE]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😁.

[QUOTE=SoapySmith;2226063]I confess to cribbing my explanation from this book:

[URL]https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/0061707813/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1537333008&sr=1-1&keywords=sex[/URL]+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.[/QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE=SoapySmith;2226063]I confess to cribbing my explanation from this book:

[URL]https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/0061707813/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1537333008&sr=1-1&keywords=sex[/URL]+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). ......[/QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE=KabulGuy;2226969] 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.[/QUOTE]Referred to by some as the "unselfish gene. " The gene doesn't care if I pass it along or my brother does.

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.

[QUOTE=KabulGuy;2226969]Just finished reading the book. I downloaded it from Amazon and read it on Kindle.[/QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE=SoapySmith;2227319]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.[/QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE=SoapySmith;2227319]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.[/QUOTE]In case you do not want spend mongering funds on books.

[URL]https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B35CHq__bQh7aUYtM0xrdW5oYzA/edit[/URL]

[QUOTE=KabulGuy;2227348]

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).
[/QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE=RedKilt;2227878]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.[/QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE=SoapySmith;2227922]The book shares a lot with Desmond Morris' thesis .....[/QUOTE]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 [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Ape[/URL].

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 [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_at_Dawn[/URL].

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.

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.

[QUOTE=KabulGuy;2228121]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 [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Ape[/URL].

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 [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_at_Dawn[/URL].

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.[/QUOTE]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.