on this, the social conservatives may have a point. what is good for my personal sexual fulfillment is not necessarily good for the functioning of modern society.

“there’s a natural liberalization of sexual mores during the genesis of any new civilization.”

yes, it’s called culling the men of the enemy tribe and impregnating their women.

“Khan’s motivation for spreading his seed was overwhelmingly strategic.”

his gene’s motivation to spread its legacy was strategic. khan’s motivation extended no further than his hard-on.

“In an interview shortly before his death,”

it’s funny how repentant guys become while on their deathbeds.

“And anyway, who really wants to die alone?”

more importantly, who really wants to live alone?

“chronic promiscuity isn’t condemnable so much as unfortunate”

unfortunate for whom?

“because it illustrates a fundamental inability/unwillingness to admit that sex is more than a superficial biological act.”

everything we do and think is a biological act. placing value judgements on those acts only reflects the different standards that women have from men.

“It’s consistently stripping man of the very reason and emotional capability that distinguishes him from other mammals”

we are animals.
what distinguishes us is the degree to which we humans dress up our motivations.

“depriving him of an important aspect of his humanity”

what is this aspect?
who defines it?

“I think serial sexing is like deliberately never reading past the first page of any book”

sometimes it’s fun to read the last page first.

“who are a little more erudite than the kind you’re defending”

odds are ghengis khan was one smart motherfucker.

In the case of Ghengis Khan, there’s a natural liberalization of sexual mores during the genesis of any new civilization. As the father of an empire, Khan had to both ensure his own political legacy and encourage his followers to multiply for the longevity of the Mongol dynasty. Maybe the guy happened to like sex (come on, who doesn’t?), but he was no Don Juan– Khan’s motivation for spreading his seed was overwhelmingly strategic.

In Wilt Chamberlain, you have an extremely talented loner who ultimately admitted that promiscuity was both a perk and a curse of his celebrity. In an interview shortly before his death, Chamberlain warned other men who might admire him for his sexual escapades: “Having a thousand different ladies is pretty cool, but I have learned in my life that having one woman a thousand different times is much more satisfying.” And anyway, who really wants to die alone?

I’ll grant you that the concept of “healthy” is somewhat relative. But neither of these two cases nor any personal acquaintance I can think of convinces me that it’s sensible to endorse a policy of attempting to satisfy one’s sexual lust whenever one experiences it. As far as I’m concerned, chronic promiscuity isn’t condemnable so much as unfortunate, because it illustrates a fundamental inability/unwillingness to admit that sex is more than a superficial biological act. It’s consistently stripping man of the very reason and emotional capability that distinguishes him from other mammals, and in so doing, depriving him of an important aspect of his humanity. (That’s not to say that man shouldn’t enjoy a good primal fuck once in awhile– but how will he know the difference if he never allows himself to experience anything less superficial?)

In sum, I think serial sexing is like deliberately never reading past the first page of any book. Historical exceptions aside, I tend to trust people who are a little more erudite than the kind you’re defending.

as evidenced by DNA testing, genghis khan left his legacy in more than 10 million modern progeny. wilt chamberlain had over 20,000 lovers. i doubt either of them saw a therapist, and i doubt the women who chose to sleep with them first asked if they had had therapy, or lab tests, for their world-record beating dalliances.

healthy is relative. while in the modern context defying societal conventions to marry and invest in the children of one wife will raise the ire of the commissars of acceptable behavior, leading to charges of ostracization through psychological remote diagnosis and calls for therapy, in other environments it was the birthright of the blessed, raising nary an eyebrow.

I might give guys a wee bit more leeway than girls before jumping to conclusions about their promiscuity (NB to my feminist friends: I know that’s unfair and illogical to women, but you have to admit that cultural norms are self-fulfilling); however, if I learned that a member of either sex had fucked into the high double digits by his/her early 30s, I would not stick around for explanations. On the other hand, I would recommend several lab tests and a good therapist.

Also, the lady with 180 might have a pretty loose definition of what kind of hookup constitutes a notch.

Generate – too true

The others? Fat Cat Lady. Nasty Hag Who Is 24 On Internet. Fat Slob With Self-Esteem Problems.

And then the last girl. Look, I have nothing wrong with her. But I do want to point out the math. She say’s she’s been with one guy for the last year, but let’s stretch it (no pun intended) to get best-case numbers. From 13 to 24, 11 years. 180 cocks (calling them ‘lovers’ is pushing it.) That comes out to over 16 a year. Roughly one new one every three weeks. Assuming no gangbangs and no one night stands and even allowing for pill-assisted reduction of monthyl downtime, she’s not had much in the way of dry spells (literal or figurative.) If you want to bring home that kind of mantrain to Mamma, go right ahead.

On the other hand, you have this: New Victorians.

“All we need is love” kid..

its companionship — and a feeling of being wanted that a human craves.

the slong — and tits — is just all side music.

I get tired of the marriage + kids happily ever after. It’s just not. A lot of the time: The kids grow up to be lunatics and/or your husband effs off either to his own world in his head or to another woman. It is natural for a woman to yearn for kids or whatnot, but if she finds a way to not do it then three cheers for her! She’s missing out on a lot of headache.

I don’t know if a high notch count actually means good sex is to be had? But also a “safe” marriage is not a way guarantee this either. So how does one arrange to get the best sex of their life? A crazy passion/love affair?

Or settling for a man who’s not attractive on the surface (not many are, anyway, and they’re annoying bastards when they are) but is completely adventerous to make up for it?

I just don’t understand how a woman can consistently find good sex in one night stands. From all the literature I’ve read, it doesn’t seem to be possible.

i were a chick, looks would be the very last thing i’d look for in a guy. In fact i would look for the tallest beta nerd i could find. This would ensure 1) he would worship me and 2) he wouldnt have any options to cheat even if he wanted to. Bonus points if he’s slept with 3 or less girls so that he wouldnt even know what to do if the opportunity presented itself.

If you were a chick, why would you want some alpha stud? First of all, he’s still a dude so he’s still hairy and disgusting. Second, he’s more apt to know and have confidence that if the relationship doesnt work he could just get a new better girl. Third, if he’s banged a lot of girls, he’ll not only know that other girls have other fresh techniques to offer, he’ll also know that if he wanted some variety he could make it happen in just a few short weeks, and probably with a better looking chick.

I know a hot girl who dates this 6′4 loser who might be a virgin. At first i thought she was an idiot. Now i see that she’s got it all figured out.

This is astonishing if true, but my bullshit detector is beeping. For example, notice this manifestly ridiculous statement: “Two months later, I managed to persuade my boyfriend to sleep with me at last!” A hotish girl A. has to CONVINCE her bf to have sex with her, and B. It takes two months? Hmmmmm, I smell a rat.

Anyway if true I wouldn’t go near this slut for a long term relationship, the cuckoldry threat is far to great. Girls without fathers tend to mature sexually quicker than others, it may be an genetic strategy (fatherless girls may not have survived in the past, so it was best to start pumping out babies as soon as possible) On the other hand she may just be a genetic slut, they do exist, maybe her mom has identical gene expression, could be why daddy left.