Neyland I (Formerly known as Gruden Thread)

Status
Not open for further replies.
#6,851
#6,851
VolNExile said:
Well, bless your purty little heart. :)

Are you saying that it has not dawned on you that us womens have to look good 24/7, while if y’all remember to pull up the zipper and wipe your noses, you’re doing just fine, and what more could be possibly asked?

lol at all y’all :lol:

I do prefer you to the competition, but there are days when it sure doesn’t surprise me when women prefer to bat for the other side.

{{{{{{{hugs}}}}}}
Click to expand...

You do realize the "horrible" comment was sarcasm, right?
 
#6,853
#6,853
VolNExile said:
You do realize that I was replying to your “double standard” post, not to your original “horrible” comment, right? :)
Click to expand...

I was curious what double standard I was making. Hence, the question.

I'm not sure if there is a double standard by saying it's way more interesting to look at women than dudes.
 
#6,866
#6,866
Grand Vol said:
I was curious what double standard I was making. Hence, the question.

I'm not sure if there is a double standard by saying it's way more interesting to look at women than dudes.
Click to expand...

“Standard” implies that there’s a judging, a scoring system, something to measure against, and that implies that the person being judged is a winner or loser. So I think that anyone who lives in a world where you’re rated will react to this. :dunno:

And by saying that “it’s way more interesting to look at women than dudes”, you’re falling on the default that guys offer these opinions, not women. I find men way more interesting to look at than women. :) —so you’re only speaking for 50% or so of the population, not everyone.

As to who is more interesting to look at, I think that it’s pretty well established that men tend to be visual critters, responding to how someone looks, while women tend to be relational critters, responding to whether someone will take care of you (and more importantly) will take care of your offspring.


So here comes a ramble that is waaaaaaay beyond what you invited. :)

Warning: most people don’t want to consider the following:

For those who follow sociobiology, this makes perfect sense. If you posit that the reason for existence is to pass on your genes, here’s how it goes (according to the sociobiologists, so gimme a break, and sit back and get comfy):

For men: your best bet is to mate with any and every fertile female around, as often as possible, because this increases your chance of producing fertile children who will then have grandchildren (<- grandchildren are what count in terms of carrying on your DNA.) Since the major visual triggers of fertility are seeing nice breasts and curvy hips and a young facial appearance (plus the hair in various places thing), this is why men tend to react to visual cues, as opposed to reacting to those who show signs of knowing how to run a household, patch your azzes back up when they are grievously assaulted, cook and preserve food, cure injuries and ailments, offer useful feedback on the tricky difficulties of daily life, and be there for the long run. In other words, men are genetically programmed to go after the flashers rather than the stayers. (Again, just quoting the science here.)

For women: your best bet from a sociobiology standpoint is to mate with an alpha male, someone who leads the tribe and has the power to support and protect your children. It’s not whether you survive (you’re toast in the end; in the end, you’re ust a uterus), or even if your children survive; it’s whether your grandchildren survive. So you need a powerful male who will defend the fam. That’s what carries on your DNA. So women are programmed to go after the stud, the flashy guy, the boss, the high-roller: the guy who successfully spreads around his DNA, who protects it, (meaning his children) from the genetic standpoint. He may not be there in the evening for you, watching the sunset and sipping wine and listening to jazz on KCSM. Again, that might not increase the chances of your grandchildren surviving, and your druthers really don’t matter. According to sociobiology, women shouldn’t care about ladies on the side, unless they represent a threat to take the male away. Which they often do, because remember, the girlfriends are programmed to increase their offsprings’ survival, meaning that there is a drive to get pregnant and then ensure the survival of their children. Whose DNA will survive?

To carry on this theory in a more creepy way, this explains why (sorry folks, but it’s in the stats), stepsons are more likely to be killed (a DNA threat to the new father), and stepdaughters are more likely to be sexually assaulted (a chance to perpetuate DNA from the new father.)

You’re welcome. It revolts me too.

So anyway, for guys who have been dumped in favor of Beemer Guy, and for women who have been dumped for the 23-year-old Tiffani or Jessica or Jennifer, this might be what’s going on in the background, and your would-be partner is probably not even aware of what’s driving him/her.

For those who have never encountered this theory before, sit back and think about Game of Thrones. Think Cersei. How does she ensure the survival of her DNA? Think Robert Baratheon, Why’s he boinking every girl in sight? Remover, it’s not the kids, it’s THEIR kids. If someone goes against this primal directive, why? Is it for a higher moral power, or is something else going on?

You don’t have to be a slave to this, but all this sh!t might be there working away in the background, and you’d be crazy not to add it into things you mull over.
 
Last edited:
#6,873
#6,873
VolNExile said:
“Standard” implies that there’s a judging, a scoring system, something to measure against, and that implies that the person being judged is a winner or loser. So I think that anyone who lives in a world where you’re rated will react to this. :dunno:

And by saying that “it’s way more interesting to look at women than dudes”, you’re falling on the default that guys offer these opinions, not women. I find men way more interesting to look at than women. :) —so you’re speaking for 50% or so of the population, not everyone.

As to who is more interesting to look at, I think that it’s pretty well established that men tend to be visual critters, responding to how someone looks, while women tend to be relational critters, responding to whether someone will take care of you (and more importantly) will take care of your offspring.


So here comes a ramble that is waaaaaaay beyond what you invited. :)

Warning: most people don’t want to consider the following:

For those who follow sociobiology, this makes perfect sense. If you posit that the reason for existence is to pass on your genes, here’s how it goes (according to the sociobiologists, so gimme a break, and sit back and get comfy):

For men: your best bet is to mate with any and every fertile female around, as often as possible, because this increases your chance of producing fertile children who will then have grandchildren (<- grandchildren are what count in terms of carrying on your DNA.) Since the major visual triggers of fertility are seeing nice breasts and curvy hips and a young facial appearance (plus the hair in various places thing), this is why men tend to react to visual cues, as opposed to reacting to those who show signs of knowing how to run a household, patch your azzes back up when they are grievously assaulted, cook and preserve food, cure injuries and ailments, offer useful feedback on the tricky difficulties of daily life, and be there for the long run. In other words, men are genetically programmed to go after the flashers rather than the stayers. (Again, just quoting the science here.)

For women: your best bet from a sociobiology standpoint is to mate with an alpha male, someone who leads the tribe and has the power to support and protect your children. It’s not whether you survive (you’re toast in the end, just a uterus), or even if your children survive; it’s whether your grandchildren survive. So you need a powerful male who will defend the fam. That’s what carries on your DNA. So women are programmed to go after the stud, the flashy guy, the boss, the high-roller: the guy who successfully spreads around his DNA, who protects it, meaning (his children) from the genetic standpoint. He may not be there in the evening for you, watching the sunset and sipping wine. Again, that might not increase the chances of yoylur grandchildren surviving, and your druthers really don’t matter. According to sociobiology, women shouldn’t care about ladies on the side, unless they represent a threat to take the male away. Which they often do, because remember, the girlfriends are programmed to increase their offsprings’ survival, meaning that there is a drive to get pregnant and then ensure the survival of their children.

To carry on this theory in a more creepy way, this explains why (sorry folks, but it’s in the stats), stepsons are more likely to be killed (a DNA threat to the new father), and stepdaughters are more likely to be sexually assaulted (a chance to perpetuate DNA from the new father.)

You’re welcome. It revolts me too.

So anyway, for guys who have been dumped in favor of Beemer Guy, and for women who have been dumped for the 23-year-old Tiffani or Jessica or Jennifer, this might be what’s going on in the background, and your would-be partner is probably not even aware of what’s driving him/her.

For those who have never encountered this theory before, sit back and think about Game of Thrones. Think Cersei. How does she ensure the survival of her DNA? Think Robert Baratheon, Why’s he boinking every girl in sight? Remover, it’s not the kids, it’s THEIR kids. If someone goes against this primal directive, why? Is it for a higher moral power, or is something else going on?

You don’t have to be a slave to this, but all this sh!t might be there working away in the background, and you’d be crazy not to add it into things you mull over.
Click to expand...

I finished the first sentence, I think. If you just go ahead and post a pic, we can issue a rating. That is what this was about, right?
 
#6,874
#6,874
VolNExile said:
“Standard” implies that there’s a judging, a scoring system, something to measure against, and that implies that the person being judged is a winner or loser. So I think that anyone who lives in a world where you’re rated will react to this. :dunno:

And by saying that “it’s way more interesting to look at women than dudes”, you’re falling on the default that guys offer these opinions, not women. I find men way more interesting to look at than women. :) —so you’re only speaking for 50% or so of the population, not everyone.

As to who is more interesting to look at, I think that it’s pretty well established that men tend to be visual critters, responding to how someone looks, while women tend to be relational critters, responding to whether someone will take care of you (and more importantly) will take care of your offspring.


So here comes a ramble that is waaaaaaay beyond what you invited. :)

Warning: most people don’t want to consider the following:

For those who follow sociobiology, this makes perfect sense. If you posit that the reason for existence is to pass on your genes, here’s how it goes (according to the sociobiologists, so gimme a break, and sit back and get comfy):

For men: your best bet is to mate with any and every fertile female around, as often as possible, because this increases your chance of producing fertile children who will then have grandchildren (<- grandchildren are what count in terms of carrying on your DNA.) Since the major visual triggers of fertility are seeing nice breasts and curvy hips and a young facial appearance (plus the hair in various places thing), this is why men tend to react to visual cues, as opposed to reacting to those who show signs of knowing how to run a household, patch your azzes back up when they are grievously assaulted, cook and preserve food, cure injuries and ailments, offer useful feedback on the tricky difficulties of daily life, and be there for the long run. In other words, men are genetically programmed to go after the flashers rather than the stayers. (Again, just quoting the science here.)

For women: your best bet from a sociobiology standpoint is to mate with an alpha male, someone who leads the tribe and has the power to support and protect your children. It’s not whether you survive (you’re toast in the end, just a uterus), or even if your children survive; it’s whether your grandchildren survive. So you need a powerful male who will defend the fam. That’s what carries on your DNA. So women are programmed to go after the stud, the flashy guy, the boss, the high-roller: the guy who successfully spreads around his DNA, who protects it, meaning (his children) from the genetic standpoint. He may not be there in the evening for you, watching the sunset and sipping wine. Again, that might not increase the chances of your grandchildren surviving, and your druthers really don’t matter. According to sociobiology, women shouldn’t care about ladies on the side, unless they represent a threat to take the male away. Which they often do, because remember, the girlfriends are programmed to increase their offsprings’ survival, meaning that there is a drive to get pregnant and then ensure the survival of their children. Whose DNA will survive?

To carry on this theory in a more creepy way, this explains why (sorry folks, but it’s in the stats), stepsons are more likely to be killed (a DNA threat to the new father), and stepdaughters are more likely to be sexually assaulted (a chance to perpetuate DNA from the new father.)

You’re welcome. It revolts me too.

So anyway, for guys who have been dumped in favor of Beemer Guy, and for women who have been dumped for the 23-year-old Tiffani or Jessica or Jennifer, this might be what’s going on in the background, and your would-be partner is probably not even aware of what’s driving him/her.

For those who have never encountered this theory before, sit back and think about Game of Thrones. Think Cersei. How does she ensure the survival of her DNA? Think Robert Baratheon, Why’s he boinking every girl in sight? Remover, it’s not the kids, it’s THEIR kids. If someone goes against this primal directive, why? Is it for a higher moral power, or is something else going on?

You don’t have to be a slave to this, but all this sh!t might be there working away in the background, and you’d be crazy not to add it into things you mull over.
Click to expand...

VNE with the knowledge bomb.:rock:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,875
#6,875
Leximax said:
Y’all leave him alone. I’d say we’ve all had too much to drink and wished we wouldn’t have gotten online.
Click to expand...

You're supposed to say, "Don't put his name in your mouth!", though technically we're typing not speaking. Hmm.. Is Chuck one of those guys that has to speak out loud when typing? That must be hard when you're in public.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top