patrick.net

Rin says

Seriously, what was the purpose of the Revolutionary War? I'm less free here than back in England.

Wasn't that Patrick Henry's TRUE Address: "Give me Hookers, or give me Death!"

Ceffer says

Wasn't that Patrick Henry's TRUE Address: "Give me Hookers, or give me Death!"

Not according to Vaughn de Leath:

And do you remember Patrick Henry
Patrick Henry and that speech, that wonderful speech
When he cried, "Give me, give me liberty or black bottom!"

P N Dr Lo R says

And do you remember Patrick Henry

Ok, it still doesn't change the fact that it's legal to fuck whores in England but not in America, outside of a few desert communities in Nevada.

When are you going to screw a hooker that looks like the jedi actress in Star Wars VII?

turtledove says

and those sites understand correctly that women hate weak men, men who are devoted to feminism, and men who are too in love with them.

Weak men: Yes

Men devoted to feminism: Depends on what you mean... Are you talking about guys who refuse to be "gentlemen" because it goes against their idea of feminism? If so, yes, I hate that. My men opened my doors and paid for my dinners. Not because I'm incapable of opening a door or affording dinner. But because it was the gentlemanly thing to do. If I wanted to split the bill, I'd go out with my girlfriends. But if you're talking about guys who support a woman's ability to reach her dreams even if it's outside traditional gender roles... obviously, I would disagree with that, as I think most women do, in fact, like that.

Men who are too in love with them: Again, that depends on what you mean. Men who act like doormats because they are so in love with their girlfriends and can't ever contradict them are definitely asking for trouble. If that's what you mean, I would agree. So, doormat -- BAD; Guy who loves me A LOT but is still his own person -- GOOD.

ok, we agree on weak men. makes total sense from an evolutionary theory point of view. a woman with a baby is in need of protection. literal physical big strong man protection.

by "devoted to feminism" i mean the kind of guy who wears a shirt that says "this is what a feminist looks like" and hates "patriarchy" just as much as militant lesbians do. this means he also has no ambition, because, you know, it's wrong for men to have ambition because they already have so many advantages and have oppressed so many innocent people, etc etc. there is no chance this guy lifts weights.

by men who are too in love, i mean that the mere fact that valuing a woman very highly and quickly after meeting her makes her suspicious of your options in women and tends to kill her attraction. i had this discussion with my wife and she agreed. women frequently, maybe secretly, do not value themselves all that highly, so if you instantly value her above all else in the world, she thinks you're an idiot.

women frequently, maybe secretly, do not value themselves all that highly, so if you instantly value her above all else in the world, she thinks you're an idiot.

Pat, ask yourself this one question ... why is Turtledove, so fascinated by my threads? I mean really, I'm pretty much, nothing but insulting to the average American woman but yet, she's completely fascinated by how a man, can have virtually everything going right in life, but reject relationships.

You see, this is the true rise of the alpha male, a man who's financially, emotionally, and spiritually free, of the need of women, for any sense of validation.

I mean really, my posts here are just me criticizing society and calling on its bullshit, like my threads on Ivy League colleges and how it's about recruiting for management consulting and financial services firms and not education.

to carry it further, women have automatic triggers for attraction just like men do, but they are very different ones.

men like tits and ass, a pretty face, and hopefully a pleasant disposition (but not having one is not a deal breaker if the other factors are in place)

women like size and strength and social status, but most of all confidence. a man's not having confidence actually is a deal breaker for women.

both men and women size up these initial factors extremely quickly.

what happens after that depends on a zillion things, but the subtle game of initial attraction happens automatically on both sides.

Rin says

free, of the need of women, for any sense of validation

i'm not talking about validation, just companionship. it seems lonely never to be very close to someone over the long term.

i'm not talking about validation, just companionship. it seems lonely never to be very close to someone over the long term.

I disagree because many of those bonds were already formed back in childhood.

If adulthood is the only time when one forms bonds ... well, the train had left the station, ages ago.

Rin says

i'm not talking about validation, just companionship. it seems lonely never to be very close to someone over the long term.

I disagree because many of those bonds were already formed back in childhood.

If adulthood is the only time when one forms bonds ... well, the train had left the station, ages ago.

You can form a lasting bond with someone at any stage of your life. Many people find lasting love and happiness well into old age.

I find it self-evident from your threads that you are happy as a clam. Now, listen to what everybody says, wrap it up tightly, and jam it up a hoes ass, then ignore the fuck out of it. My advice, which you should also pound into a hoe's ass, is to search for a finance job in London. By the way, ass play costs extra.

YesYNot says

By the way, ass play costs extra.

hard to understand from evolutionary theory. she's not going to get pregnant doing that, so why is it highly valued?

read an interesting scientific article once about how women who swallow after a blow job are in fact more likely to then get pregnant by the same man from vaginal sex. it was theorized that something in the semen tells her immune system that "this guy is ok" and makes it easier for sperm from him later. wish i could find that article again. not a hoax.

hard to understand from evolutionary theory. she's not going to get pregnant doing that, so why is it highly valued?

Are we all evolutionary biologists? It's hard to understand why so many questions on this board are answered with evolution in mind. The evolution understanding lens seems to be applied to other people (i.e. women) more so than the budding philosopher poster (men). To the point, I imagine it has something to do with comfort level and risk. If a biologist thinks hard enough, (s)he might know that the vag is more suited to a good pounding than the ass. A hoe will surely know this from experience.

YesYNot says

It's hard to understand why so many questions on this board are answered with evolution in mind.

pesonally, i'm trying to continue thinking about evolution and behavior because it has been very successful in answering lots of hard questions in convincing and testable ways.

it does fail in some respects though. gayness does seem to be genetic to some degree, but it's very hard to explain via evolution.

YesYNot says

The evolution understanding lens seems to be applied to other people (i.e. women) more so than the budding philosopher poster (men).

evolution works great in understanding most male behavior too, men are just so simple and obvious as to hardly be worth talking about. women are more complicated, and many previously mysterious female behaviors can be readily brought into focus and understood through this new lens.

Rin,
Even though you're young, sounds like you have It All Figured Out, already.
Lonely At The Top, huh?

www.youtube.com/embed/UgWeTkrlnJ0

It's unlisted video if it doesn't work for you.

If someone's homosexual it's none of my business as long as they don't hurt others.
But having to submit to digit prostate exams, I am certain that being a gay male is an abomination.

men are just so simple and obvious as to hardly be worth talking about. women are more complicated, and many previously mysterious female behaviors can be readily brought into focus and understood through this new lens

I'd say this is mostly a matter of perspective. I do find some of the comments here, and from red pill types to be interesting. But usually, they are transparently one sided and odd. As one example, you often see some 'weak' guy complaining that 95% of the women are fucking 5% of the men. What is obvious to most people, is that this argument is at the very least an exaggeration. The argument most probably has some palliative effect to make the guy feel better about his lack of success.
Another blatant contradiction that I see a lot here has to do with fidelity. One one hand, you have some people portraying all women as incapable of fidelity due to evolutionary reasons. These people portray the guys as poor dupes with nothing but good intentions. No one is turning to the evolution lens when a guy's fidelity is in question. On the other hand, when fidelity is not in question, you have people claiming that all guys want is tits, ass, some good pokes, and less drama / crazy.
Reality is that evolution has given us the impulse to be faithful and loyal when trust is there, and always on the lookout for sex mating opportunities in general. As a species, our success requires cooperation at the societal (tribal) level and at the pair (parents) level. Simply trying to fuck more women or capture the best sperm is not the whole story.

B.A.C.A.H. says

Rin,

Even though you're young, sounds like you have It All Figured Out, already.

Lonely At The Top, huh?

Ultimately, if a man wants love, he should get himself a dog.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Boy_and_His_Dog

www.youtube.com/embed/5BDxqhI9qDw

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

On the other hand, social liberals and many gay people believe homosexuality is natural, and therefore find the existence of homosexual sex in animals unsurprising. Animal preference and motivation is always inferred from behavior. Thus homosexual behavior has been given a number of terms over the years.

YesYNot says

In the alternative hypothesis, women do the practical job of gathering (getting most of the calories), while the men act like peacocks going around getting the most scarce items to prove their mating worthiness.

This is wrong, because it conflates food mass with calories. The meat provided the majority of the calories, the berries, tubers, and nuts the minority of the calories - even though the food by mass was exactly reversed.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/3/682.long

And hunting was far more dangerous - no hunting boar with a sniper rifle, but by an underpowered non-compound bow that could only shoot a few dozen feet and then without much force and had to have poisoned applied - or using a spear. Then the wounded beast, since one-shot kills with stone age weaponry being rare even among high experience hunters - tracked through the woods full of lions and tigers for hours.

Traditional Hunter Gatherers today, in New Guinea or the Khoi-San (Bushmen) of Kalahari Desert - have words for 'general hunger' and 'meat hunger', just like Eskimos have multiple exact terms for types of snow ('packed snow', 'loose snow', 'icy snow', etc).

Nature in it's diversity finds it desirable to transmit male traits in females and female traits in males, thus preserving both maleness and femaleness, which manifest in more direct and pure forms in individuals but as variables in others. These variations can be genotypic, phenotypic or in the case of humans psychogenic and developmental as well. Androgyny in women and mixed, indeterminate genitals in ostensible males and females are not common, but they are not uncommon, either. There are some with both sets of reproductive organs, and an occasional male with a double penis.

Also, sexually dimorphic species are mostly predominantly female with males only spun off to generate case specific reproductive variation and diversity. Humans and other creatures with generally equal ratios are simply the result of statistical evolution that favors those ratios. Human Beings have developed the odd meme that the species is "male" with the "females" the spin offs, whereas the reality is just the opposite.

The fact that female "ultra fems" generating males that may resemble them could be tagged a form of genetic narcissism. However, since psychogenic gay males run the gamut from fems to ultra butch male types, the variability again seems to be the predominate theme.

Guys, are you thinking a bit too much about this topic? Really, this isn't a field for some academic studies.

The bottom line is as simple as the following ... I like t*ts and some *ss. Really, once you're past that point, there's not much else.

All this discussion is a desecration of the purity of bonking hoes.

Ceffer says

All this discussion is a desecration of the purity of bonking hoes.

The discussion can exist in the vacuum of the academic field of 'the interactions of men & women in modern and pre-ancient civilizations'.

But after that demarcation, it's better to simply acknowledge that boinking hoes is a heck of a lot of fun.

Rin says

it's better to simply acknowledge that boinking hoes is a heck of a lot of fun.

I'm curious of the practical aspects of boinking hoes. Does one assume that the hole they are boinking is rather clean and not full of other dude's semen? What about the residue of balls and 'taint on her tongue. Do you go out early in the night, or hire one on for the whole evening? If you are hiring an escort, I thought that was pretty much legal, since you are paying for the evening's company, and she can just choose to screw you. Do you just always put some rubber between you and her? What if the condom breaks and she does get pregnant? I guess the presumption is that she'd abort. Would you be responsible if she didn't?

Outside of the hygiene issues, isn't boinking hoes kind of like going to a zoo to hunt wild animals, cheating in a game of cards, or landing a job at dad's firm? It seems like it would be fun, but somehow less rewarding.

YesYNot says

isn't boinking hoes kind of like going to a zoo to hunt wild animals, cheating in a game of cards, or landing a job at dad's firm? It seems like it would be fun, but somehow less rewarding.

Here's the difference, if you have any modicum of success in America, women will find you attractive, whether or not you're tall/handsome/etc. Now, if you have a blend of qualities which give you the cultural stature, then it's a different story. Since you already know that for the most part, a good number of women will be somewhat interested, what's in it for you? To tell others that you're a ladies man? Or that hotties desire you?

You see, a lot of that stuff is suppose to be in the pre age 29 category. Afterwards, it's more about being practical. Do you want a lawsuit, a stalker, etc?

For me, boning hoes is that having some fun but then, sending the person away so that outside of that allotted period of time, she's out of one's life. And then, there's no false rape allegation nor the embarrassment of her showing up at the office *unannounced* and making one look like a fool in front of co-workers.

This is why I'm astonished at the success of the Kardashian sisters and their ability to get rich men to want to date 'em. If I were a true multimillionaire, would I want my clients talking about my wife's reality show and how she looks like a complete bimbo-slut in front of millions? You see, those rich guys are a bunch of fucking idiots. In reality, all they have is money, neither self-respect nor class.

I'm not aware of any human society where women were the hunters and warriors, and where men were the primarily child care givers.

Nor of any society where men stayed at home and women did all the work outside of the home.

That these elements are found worldwide from the Arctic to the New Guinea Highlands, from the Ganges to the Amazon, is a problem for feminists to attempt to explain away.

Happiness is state of mind , set bar low u can stay happy. Also happiness is not continuously sustainable.

Glad u r finding whores, i cant even find them . N they cost $$ 150 n up and still provide no happy ending.

Rin says

You see, those rich guys are a bunch of fucking idiots. In reality, all they have is money, neither self-respect nor class.

Maybe they are bored with their money and hoe's don't do it for them. They could just be more interested in fame or anything else that is new and different. It's hard to say - you might be right - they could be idiots chasing something that's not there. It's also hard to say what will keep your interest in 10 years. What are you, early 30s? I remember when I was in my early 20s, I thought I was now a grown-up, and my perspective wouldn't change much. I felt similarly in the early 30s. It's funny, perspectives keep changing. I imagine they keep changing in your 40s, 50s, etc. People tend to want new challenges, if they aren't dead inside. I'd say that proving your ability to attract mates is interesting until you've satisfied yourself that you can do it. After that, it doesn't have the same draw. I'd agree with you that this usually happens in your teens / twenties. Somehow boinking hoes doesn't interest me, though. Maybe, it's b/c I have a regular tap for sex. I'm sure if I were otherwise celibate, I'd be hitting that shit.

thunderlips11 says

Nor of any society where men stayed at home and women did all the work outside of the home.

I'm not sure your average person who identifies as a feminist is advocating for that. I'm sure there are a few nut jobs on faculty somewhere.

YesYNot says

I'm not sure your average person who identifies as a feminist is advocating for that. I'm sure there are a few nut jobs on faculty somewhere.

Didn't say they were. But it does show a long standing division of labor that almost certainly is expressed genetically.

Yes, once in a while I'm sure there was a "Red Sonja" and of course there were Catamites, but they are a tiny subset of any population and considered odd exceptions to the rule.

YesYNot says

Maybe they are bored with their money and hoe's don't do it for them. They could just be more interested in fame or anything else that is new and different. It's hard to say - you might be right - they could be idiots chasing something that's not there. It's also hard to say what will keep your interest in 10 years. What are you, early 30s? I remember when I was in my early 20s, I thought I was now a grown-up, and my perspective wouldn't change much. I felt similarly in the early 30s. It's funny, perspectives keep changing. I imagine they keep changing in your 40s, 50s, etc. People tend to want new challenges, if they aren't dead inside. I'd say that proving your ability to attract mates is interesting until you've satisfied yourself that you can do it. After that, it doesn't have the same draw. I'd agree with you that this usually happens in your teens / twenties. Somehow boinking hoes doesn't interest me, though. Maybe, it's b/c I have a regular tap for sex. I'm sure if I were otherwise celibate, I'd be hitting that shit.

Yes, they're bored with their money but that's not really the issue. What do they really want to do with their lives?

Do they want to develop a new musical genre? Write the great American novel? Learn the nuclear sciences?

I'll bet you that none of those fellows have such aspirations. And thus, like the rest of society's bitches, they'll succumb to the whims of a bunch of bitches, like the Kardashians.

Today, I'm in my mid-30s. I haven't dated in nearly 5 years, circa Mar/Apr of 2016, but at the same time, I don't miss that nonsense. In a way, I've developed a habit and that's the habit of rejecting women, as something meaningful in my life, despite continuous societal pressure to date and eventually, settle down.

Here's the real truth about women ... as a cohort, women don't change much, once they hit their mid-20s. And thus, even if your aspirations and goals evolve, on the average, the women you'll meet, will still on some level, be psychologically in their mid-20s, even when they hit their 50s. What that means is that as guys move forward, if they engage in relationships, it'll always be some sort of baby sitting ritual. For me, that's too lame to consider, in the latter years of my life.

gayness does seem to be genetic to some degree, but it's very hard to explain via evolution.

@Patrick, New Renter and I have already explained that for you. Let me ask you a question that might make the point more obvious and familiar to you: have Catholics gone extinct due to the "celibate" (or at least non-procreative) priesthood, monasteries, and nunneries? To the contrary, Catholics have proliferated to an extent they outnumber nearly all other religions. Civilization requires a division of labor, and the optimum procreative % within a population or species is almost certainly less than 100%. Even closet cases such as Larry Craig and Forthood have a role in promoting the species. Sometimes computer programmers seem to have an oversimplified binary view, reducing everything to either one or zero. Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no more so, and if your explanation of evolution doesn't fit the observable facts then that should tell you that your explanation oversimplifies the theory.

Having said that, many gay couples do have kids, and the opportunities are increasing. @Turtledove posted about one example. Within a decade, technology is likely to advance tremendously, with the largest market being probably women who have postponed childbirth too long or who were otherwise unable to bear children the old fashioned way. IPS cells can be made into eggs, though so far only in mice; that technology and artificial wombs will enable post-menopausal women to have children who are genetically theirs, and it will do the same for gay couples.

curious2 says

have Catholics gone extinct due to the "celibate" (or at least non-procreative) priesthood, monasteries, and nunneries? To the contrary, Catholics have proliferated to an extent they outnumber nearly all other religions

There are two types of Catholics: those who become priests or nuns and thus end their genetic line, and those who don't because they are horny as hell and want to reproduce like rabbits. By eliminating the former from the gene pool, the latter was able to take over the niche.

Dan8267 says

By eliminating the former from the gene pool, the latter was able to take over the niche.

The former have not been eliminated from the gene pool, though the availability of same-sex relationships does appear to have caused a shortage of priests. As you have posted elsewhere, the genome contains so much overlap that whether you personally have children has little effect on the overall gene pool.

curious2 says

and it will do the same for gay couples.

Not only that, but there is no reason why it is not plausible to take the sperm from two or more different males and combine the genetic code into an egg whose DNA has been removed. It's possible to allow a child to have two or more biological fathers and no biological mother, save for his or he mitochondria DNA, and theoretically even that could be taken from a body sell of one or more fathers.

Dan8267 says

two or more different males and combine the genetic code into an egg

The direction of IPS cell development suggests a simpler method: it is already possible to convert a skin cell into an IPS cell, and then (so far in mice) into a gamete (either an egg or sperm cell). So, within around a decade, a skin cell from a person of either sex can yield a sperm or egg cell, and thus skin cells from any two people will be able to yield sperm and egg cells from each.

Rin says

can someone tell me why f*cking wh*res won't bring me happiness?

Anyone can see that only posting on PatNet brings you happiness.

curious2 says

Let me ask you a question that might make the point more obvious and familiar to you: have Catholics gone extinct due to the "celibate" (or at least non-procreative) priesthood, monasteries, and nunneries? To the contrary, Catholics have proliferated to an extent they outnumber nearly all other religions. Civilization requires a division of labor, and the optimum procreative % within a population or species is almost certainly less than 100%. Even closet cases such as Larry Craig and Forthood have a role in promoting the species.

i understand the role of catholic priests in creating more catholics (namely, convincing couples that contraception is morally wrong) and i myself am partly a result of that. my dad was the last of 8 kids in a very catholic family.

i still don't understand the role of gays in increasing population anywhere. how would that work?