patrick.net

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?

how would that work?

Again, evolution is not always about maximizing population at generation x+1. If, for every generation x, you were to try to maximize population in generation x+1, like in some oversimplified SIM City program, then the population would quickly exhaust the limits of its resources and suffer a Malthusian collapse. Any mammalian species with such a short-sighted strategy would have been wiped out long ago. Instead, multiple factors moderate population growth among successful species, and that contributes to their long term success by protecting against sudden collapses.

BTW, Malthus is politically incorrect because his theories were used to suggest that Catholics would cause a Malthusian collapse. That doesn't always happen (though overcrowding can promote epidemics e.g. plague), but if you look at countries with unusually high birth rates you tend to see desperate poverty and dependence on aid/transfer programs from places with lower birthrates. Islam seems to have found a way to combine the high birth rates of Muslim countries with the generous transfer programs of countries with lower birth rates.

I suppose certain insect species might try to maximize reproduction at every generation, e.g. spiders, since they are essentially organic robots with no need for the extended education that mammals require, but even among insects the % who reproduce is less than 100%. Drones in a beehive, for example.

i still don't get it. how exactly does being gay get propagated genetically?

i did once read a theory that when pregnant women are very stressed, their boys are more likely to turn out gay. i think the study was german women who lived through wwii.

but then it's a huge waste to even let those boys develop and be born. if it were about conserving resources, the pregnancy would reverse. i think rabbits can actually do that, absorb embryos when under stress.

i still don't get it... it's a huge waste

You are digging into a position rather than reading the data. You didn't even take the time to follow the links back to the prior post. In a social species such as humans, other productive humans are a resource, because they produce surplus. You don't need to propagate every trait from one generation to the next directly, e.g. blue eyes are a recessive genetic trait and yet they reappear regularly. Consider the example of lactose intolerance: around 1/3 of humans cannot digest cow's milk; around 2/3 can. You don't need to digest milk every day, or even every generation, but if a circumstance arises where there isn't much else, it can suddenly become very useful. You don't always need a gay couple to produce more gay kids, but rather you do need a genome where surplus males are more likely to be gay. (Or, at least, you have such a genome, as does every successful species nearly related to us. Whatever your theory, it has to fit those facts.)

curious2 says

you do need a genome where surplus males are more likely to be gay

why? so that they don't attack the hetero men in competition for women? you could argue that, given that the probability of being gay goes up with birth order number. the first son is the least likely to be gay, the youngest the most.

but then what is their function?

we have chickens, and i do think the function of "surplus" roosters is to be waiting in the wings (so to speak) for the dominant rooster to get killed defending the hens from a dog or whatever. so they are just backups, and move in in strict pecking order, which corresponds to their strength, which does have the important function of defending the hens.

so does this imply that gay men would turn straight if there were suddenly a surplus of women?

i still don't get it. how exactly does being gay get propagated genetically?

The current best theory is that sexual orientation is determined by conditions and development while in the womb, not by a gay gene. That said, genes can be successful even if they end their own host's bloodline provide that they help close relatives. For example, a gene that promotes self-sacrifice in order to save kin will propagate through a species even if many carriers of that gene die before they can reproduce in order to protect kin.

The trait of homosexuality can be useful to kin in that it provides aunts and uncles who can help defend, take care of children, and provide material support without diverting resources to their own children. If times are difficult, having childless aunts and uncles can greatly increase the survival of the nieces and nephews. In doing so, genes that promote childless adults can still be an evolutionary success.

Think about bees. Most bees don't reproduce. They toil relentlessly for the queen, a sister, who does all the reproduction.

so does this imply that gay men would turn straight if there were suddenly a surplus of women?

I don't think so, but CIC did turn into a zoophile due to a lack of humans willing to mate with him.

Lots of social species produce non-reproducing individuals who are nonetheless important to the organization and welfare of the social unit. Think ant and bee colonies, with specialized individuals but only one queen reproducing.

Theories of genetic altruism also posit such scenarios. Parsing such things out with humans may be impossible given the viciousness of sexual territoriality removing objectivity.

Of course, gays do reproduce, just not in exactly the numbers that heteros do.

Human beings are smart enough to associate sexual behaviors with reproduction, but most animals are not smart enough. Sexual behaviors are behaviors that result often in reproduction, but are basically just innate behaviors that have reproduction as a coincidental side product, whether reproduction occurs from them or not. So there is a superfluity of "behavior" in relation to the actual reproduction that goes on.

Of course, what does all this have to do with the sanctity of bonking hoes?

Because your emotional love tank is still empty. Love and sex aren't same.

How can one find happiness on the outside when they can't find it on the inside?

YesYNot says

On the John side, they are arrested much less frequently (according to Levitt). He doesn't bother turning the lens on the Johns, so there is nothing their to help us figure out Rin's true happiness and chances of maintaining that level of interest in future decades. Sorry Rin.

First of all, I don't boink within the United States of America, a.k.a. Uncle Sam, the so-called land of the free.

I only boink in countries where calling in an esc*rt, is fully legal. And thus, the negotiation stuff, etc, is all done by the agency. There's no police trouble and no random arrest, for doing something with adults are suppose to do naturally.

Bonking hoes may not bring happiness, but as an alternative happiness, it ain't half bad and you may never know the difference.

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.

To quote "house of cards", Francis Underwood (Kevin Spacey) says:

"Such a waste of talent. He chose money over power. In this town, a mistake nearly everyone makes. Money is the Mc-mansion in Sarasota that starts falling apart after 10 years. Power is the old stone building that stands for centuries. I cannot respect someone who doesn't see the difference...."

YesYNot says

The reason that plumbing is easy and pays well is that there is no social currency there, so hardly any guys want to do it either. You know economics well enough to know why people sometimes get paid a lot for easy jobs and what that means.

You think plumbing is easy? I guess you must be super intelligent. I think it takes a few years to learn it well. Agree with the social currency issue, as people more suited for trades are eschewing said trades for college to study a garbage subject with limited career prospects then ending up with debt, living at home and working as a barista.

Plumbing may not be rocket science, but it's definitely harder than going to college and studying a fluff subject. I would argue that being a good barista is harder than a lot of majors in college nowadays.

MMR says

You think plumbing is easy? I guess you must be super intelligent. I think it takes a few years to learn it well. Agree with the social currency issue, as people more suited for trades are eschewing said trades for college to study a garbage subject with limited career prospects then ending up with debt, living at home and working as a barista.

I think that within range of a city where property values and incomes are high, it would be great to work in the trades and be educated. You could make a good living to go to college, learn to think clearly and present yourself well. I'm not talking about taking weekend trips to Ca to boink hoes money, but plenty of money to live happily. After college, you act as a GC or run a business doing some trade. Obviously, you need to learn the trade and get your licenses and all. But if you can present yourself well, you can charge enough to cover overhead and training, you wouldn't have to do as much of the heavy lifting. Anyone who went through the engineering program I went through could learn any trade in very short order, as long as they have manual dexterity. My experience with other chemical engineers who graduated in the last 5 years is similar. They learn to work hard, apply themselves to new problems, learn new material, etc. The 2nd half of undergraduate engineering requires work or a ton of raw intelligence. If you go into the trades without a college degree, you might come out OK. If you were in the military or some other program to teach discipline, that would help. But I notice a lot of people in the trades around here who seem to limit their earning potential by being not too smart, lacking discipline, or just not presenting themselves well and speaking clearly and to the point.

Most businesses I've dealt with around here that have one or two guys going out on calls get customers and discuss jobs. Those guys then send in some crew to do the work. They let the crew in and discuss the job, but they don't do the heavy lifting.

Rin says

Except that a non-hoe may complain about the *guy's* music and want to listen to some Taylor Swift, Beyonce, or Lady Gaga.

The elevator to Hell has an exclusive production deal with these ladies, so you should try to be a good person or you'll be listening this shit on your elevator ride to the basement.

YesYNot says

I'm curious of the practical aspects of boinking hoes.

Good point(s). I think the whole cleanliness and residue issue grosses me the fuck out too much to make light of this angle. The best thing to do is to become outrageously wealthy and pay for a mistress to be available at your beck & call. I'm sure there are agencies out there that provide 24-hour "care," much like in-home caregiving agencies. That way, you would have a woman who wasn't swimming in germs and STD's. And if you pay enough, she will dress up or role play whatever you want. It would be perfect - you could fulfill the need of being her "protector" by paying the bill. And you would never have to listen to her whiny-ass stories.

The other possibility would be for you to buy a real life-sized sex doll. That's cheaper and you can bleach her all you want.

You often don't SEEM happy, but I doubt that has anything to do with your patronage of the sex work industry.

Why "whores", specifically though?
You could have used a lot of other terms they'd generally prefer.

Your views on gender do more readily align with Isis than my views do. You can call me a liar all you want, but that doesn't make it true. Why do you even bring Isis into the debate. You don't understand their motivations or thought patterns. If you do, then make a coherent and explicit argument about why their opinions strengthen your argument. Don't just allude to some vague notion and call other people liars when they don't understand what the fuck you are saying.

If a woman cheats, the man can leave.

His court-ordered payments would total more than $200,000 over 15 years to support another man’s child.

It's the new, enlightened legal principle of "Adoptimony". If the non-fucker hangs out with the unfaithful fuckee and her spawn long enough, the child is automatically adopted and entitled to support until majority. The "fucker-in-fact" gets to wipe off his dick and go about his business unmolested.

YesYNot says

missing the window

why should there be any window at all? she cheated and is demanding money after cheating, to support another man's child. WTF? truly gross injustice.

there should be mandatory paternity testing upon every birth.

there are definitely far more negative consequences for the man when the woman cheats than vice-versa. if she gets pregnant, he wastes years of resources and for zero genetic legacy. it's like getting robbed and then getting fined for getting robbed on top of that. a cheating husband does not affect a woman's reproductive potential at all, and can never take away from her own income.

as things stand, women get paid to cheat. in many countries, the father may not even legally order a paternity test without her permission.

Patrick, Is that a no comment on the ISIS thing then?

there are definitely far more negative consequences for the man when the woman cheats than vice-versa.

I agree in terms of getting stuck paying for someone else's biological child. On the STD front, the consequences of men cheating may be worse, as STDs from the guy can result in infertility or cancer for the woman. But, I don't understand the attempt to demand equality on these fronts when it's just the result of biology. On the emotional front, it might be more problematic for women if the women choose traditional roles as these women are more financially dependent on the cheating spouse. On the getting away with it front, the guys have it better, as there is much less chance that they get stuck with the unwanted child.

i think there should be mandatory paternity testing upon every birth.

Today, every guy has the right to get the test if he wants. He just needs to swab a cheek or take a piece of hair. Perhaps it should be offered more overtly. If it were considered normal, more guys would avail themselves of it, and it might even curtail cheating, but I doubt it. It would probably just result in more divorce after birth. But seriously, if genetic legacy is very important to you, why would you trust someone else when you know damn well how sex and biology works. Why would you assume the role of a parent for years, and then cry genetic legacy robbery years down the line? Let's say a guy gets divorced when a child is 5 or 10. He then wants to avoid paying child support. If he only wanted a kid if it were biologically his, why waste the first 5 or 10 years of time and income raising the kid without bothering to take an $80 test? How is it fair to the kid for him to take on the role of father, but make it contingent on the results of a test he takes 10 years after birth?

YesYNot says

the consequences of men cheating may be worse

actually, men are less likely to catch stds than women are. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100303142602AASJjSQ

YesYNot says

But, I don't understand the attempt to demand equality on these fronts when it's just the result of biology.

what are you talking about? i'm talking about the law being systematically unfair to men.

YesYNot says

every guy has the right to get the test if he wants.

no, that's false. the legal father can do a test, but it won't be admitted in a court unless the mother agrees. and in europe, i believe it's generally illegal for the father to even do the test without the mother's consent.

YesYNot says

why waste the first 5 or 10 years of time and income raising the kid without bothering to take an $80 test?

because of the trust you used to have in your wife. and the social pressure not to do such a test.

YesYNot says

Why would you assume the role of a parent for years, and then cry genetic legacy robbery years down the line?

because you didn't know you were lied to. fraud is fraud, even later.

so you think fraud is ok, if you can just get away with it from some number of years?

YesYNot says

every guy has the right to get the test if he wants.

no, that's false. the legal father can do a test, but it won't be admitted in a court unless the mother agrees. and in europe, i believe it's generally illegal for the father to even do the test without the mother's consent.

It is legal in the US to do a paternity test without the mother's consent. That pretty much means you have the right to do it, no? I didn't know about that in Europe. That's pretty messed up. I don't know the state by state laws, but as far as the link you provided earlier, all of the states allowed for paternity tests, but some states had a time window to contest being a father.

YesYNot says

Why would you assume the role of a parent for years, and then cry genetic legacy robbery years down the line?

because you didn't know you were lied to. fraud is fraud, even later.

so you think fraud is ok, if you can just away with it from some number of years?

I don't think fraud is OK in any circumstance. No amount of time makes what the woman did right. OTHO, as far as being a father goes, I think there should be a window of time to challenge paternity and get out of being a father. When you get a divorce, it would definitely be a good time to act on the urge to test. I'd be fine with a law stated that you have a certain time window after divorce. Should you do it when the baby is born if you trust your wife? Well, that's a personal decision, and depends on how important it is to be a biological father and how much you trust your wife. The reason that a window is important in the case of fatherhood is that the kids interest has to be taken into account.

Can someone tell me what ISIS has to do with Rin banging whores?

For the record Dan, I agree with your post, and never objected to the idea of differences between the sexes.

I objected to your characterizations, and provided alternate ones with a reference. I never objected to the idea of differences between the sexes. For Rin's sake I brought the discussion back to hoes multiple times.

Women are so evil. It is too bad men want to fuck them all the time.

Ceffer says

Women are so evil. It is too bad men want to fuck them all the time.

One day, there will be boinking robots and it'll all be some bad memory of the early part of the 21st century.