Re: how many bastards are there, anyway?
Matt Beckwith (beckwith@jaxnet.com)
27 Aug 1996 11:08:08 GMT
mycol1@unm.edu (Bryant) wrote:
>In article <4vs11u$jl0@jaxnet.southeast.net>,
>Matt Beckwith <beckwith@jaxnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>So it isn't that cuckolds are superior by virtue of being cuckolds, but
>>that women sleep with men who are attractive to them, and the >>attractive
>>men become cuckolds because so many women want them.
>
>Think so. Of course, they could be wearing two hats--having secured a
>mate, they're seeking sex on the side, like males in all those bird
>species we once thought were monogamous.
Women tend to be pragmatic, men idealistic. (Perhaps because women have
had to do all the work, leaving men free to play.) Like the way some
women gain weight once they're married, no longer having the motivation
to stay thin.
>>So how would we get an attractive, faithful man? The cuckold would >>have
>>to finally want more from a relationship, and realize that you can't >>get
>>that without commitment.
>
>A bitch, ain't it?
In what way? The losers here are women looking for faithful, sexy men to
marry.
On the other hand, women bring it upon themselves by being willing to
have sex with men who are incapable of commitment.
The women who do so are probably, in a certain way, on the same level as
the cuckolds. A woman who understands the need for commitment would not
be so indiscriminate with her affections. The woman who marries a man
for security and then has sex with another for the thrill only
understands the need for material security.
>Well, orgasm ain't necessary to conceive--it just
>improves a fellow's odds when many guys' sperm are co-mingling in a gal.
What a repulsive thought. But since sperm can live up to five days
inside the female reproductive tract, you're probably not being
inaccurate.
>Also, the attractive guys only inspire more *copulatory* orgasms. No
>evidence that committed fellows cause fewer female orgasms during
>foreplay and posplay than the symmetrical guys. That should seem >hopeful
>to women.
Now wait just a minute here. You're making so many assumptions that I,
personally, disagree with.
Orgasms are not caused by the man. If this were the case, women would be
machines with buttons, and the skilled man would know which buttons to
push. When I was an adolescent I had such a view of women, but I no
longer think it's accurate. People are much more complex than that, and
each individual is responsible for her own experiences.
Also, there are attractive, committed, faithful men. You make it sound
like women have a choice between sexy cuckolds and dull family men.
>I think this stuff speaks to the age-old question women ask themselves
>about why they're attracted so often to "assholes." The most attractive
>guys are least willing to give what most women seem to want--commitment.
Yes, but there are men who have both qualities. And the women have
brought it upon themselves by giving it up to guys without commitment.
Any woman who does so is no better a person than the cuckold with whom
she's enjoying the cheap thrill. We might say to women who say "Men are
jerks": "Yes, but women are jerkettes."
The answer, it seems to me, is for each woman to decide what she wants.
If she wants both wild and crazy sex and faithfulness, then she should
make sure that the man she drops her drawers for has those same ideals.
To the woman who says she's searched and searched without finding such a
man, I would ask whether she's ever had sex with a man who she knew in
advance was incapable of commitment.
--
Matt Beckwith
http://users.southeast.net/~beckwith/
|