Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Hot Topics => Topic started by: Dr. D on August 25, 2013, 12:37:02 am
-
I'm trying to learn more about how relationships would have worked in paleo times. As I seem to have read non-ownership polygamy, though I don't think those terms do the lifestyle justice.
I don't expect anyone to write me a book on it. However I have seen book suggestions thrown around and would love some.
-
Yeah, it certainly doesn’t. But how could we know for sure? We can only guess and infer or extrapolate from what can be observed nowadays. What seems clear is that hunters-gatherers more or less ignore the concept of private property. They share everything within their tribe, often the whole tribe live and sleep in the same big hut, adults and children all together.
Inuit and Polynesians, amongst others, were still recently very open to welcome strangers into their intimate couple. It was their way of life, offering all the best they had including physical loving contacts to the visitor. Jealousy was unknown or must have been considered something inappropriate.
Missionaries taught them our magnificent and overly superior morals principles! ;D -d
See also this thread: http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/normalized-sex-drive-on-instincto/msg99739/#msg99739 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/normalized-sex-drive-on-instincto/msg99739/#msg99739)
And this had already been extensively discussed in another thread, see especially the quote inside this post of mine:
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/re-can-we-do-without-vegetablesgreens/msg102010/#msg102010 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/re-can-we-do-without-vegetablesgreens/msg102010/#msg102010)
-
Polynesians all warm-hearted?!! Tell that to Captain Cook! l)
-
Yeah, it certainly doesn’t. But how could we know for sure? We can only guess and infer or extrapolate from what can be observed nowadays. What seems clear is that hunters-gatherers more or less ignore the concept of private property. They share everything within their tribe, often the whole tribe live and sleep in the same big hut, adults and children all together.
I wonder; from the perspective of multiple partners,, do they share their favorites? do they get jealous if their favorite is shared and ends up preferring to sleep with another man that is bigger, stronger, a better hunter, higher up in the leadership ladder? That,, I would like to read first hand objective accounts. For I can well imagine that if I had many 'wives' and you popped into town, that it wouldn't be that hard to share a less desirable one of my 'wives'. All relative.
Inuit and Polynesians, amongst others, were still recently very open to welcome strangers into their intimate couple. It was their way of life, offering all the best they had including physical loving contacts to the visitor. Jealousy was unknown or must have been considered something inappropriate.
Missionaries taught them our magnificent and overly superior morals principles! ;D -d
See also this thread: http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/normalized-sex-drive-on-instincto/msg99739/#msg99739 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/normalized-sex-drive-on-instincto/msg99739/#msg99739)
And this had already been extensively discussed in another thread, see especially the quote inside this post of mine:
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/re-can-we-do-without-vegetablesgreens/msg102010/#msg102010 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/re-can-we-do-without-vegetablesgreens/msg102010/#msg102010)
-
Polynesians all warm-hearted?!! Tell that to Captain Cook! l)
Tyler, read what happened, please:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Cook#Death
After a month's stay, Cook got under sail again to resume his exploration of the Northern Pacific. Shortly after leaving Hawaii Island, the foremast of the Resolution broke and the ships returned to Kealakekua Bay for repairs. It has been hypothesised that the return to the islands by Cook's expedition was not just unexpected by the Hawaiians, but unwelcome, because the season of Lono had recently ended (presuming that they associated Cook with Lono and Makahiki). Tensions rose, and a number of quarrels broke out between the Europeans and Hawaiians. On 14 February 1779, at Kealakekua Bay, some Hawaiians took one of Cook's small boats. As thefts were quite common in Tahiti and the other islands, Cook would have taken hostages until the stolen articles were returned.[3] He attempted to take hostage the King of Hawai_i, Kalani__pu_u. The Hawaiians prevented this, and Cook's men had to retreat to the beach. As Cook turned his back to help launch the boats, he was struck on the head by the villagers and then stabbed to death as he fell on his face in the surf.[41] Hawaiian tradition says that he was killed by a chief named Kalaimanokaho_owaha or Kana_ina.[42] The Hawaiians dragged his body away. Four of the Marines with Cook were also killed and two wounded in the confrontation.
The esteem in which he was nevertheless held by the Hawaiians resulted in his body being retained by their chiefs and elders. Following the practice of the time, Cook's body underwent funerary rituals similar to those reserved for the chiefs and highest elders of the society. The body was disembowelled, baked to facilitate removal of the flesh, and the bones were carefully cleaned for preservation as religious icons in a fashion somewhat reminiscent of the treatment of European saints in the Middle Ages. Some of Cook's remains, disclosing some corroborating evidence to this effect, were eventually returned to the British for a formal burial at sea following an appeal by the crew.[44]
The westerners don't understand that Polynesians don't share our concept of private property and theft. If they have more than you, they give you. If you have more than them, they help themselves with your belongings. It's their ways, they don't see it as a theft. I know, I've experienced that several times when I was there. In 1972, I've even witnessed the New Zealander captain of a small freighter scolding a Polynesian girl and aggressively telling her to immediately leave his ship because she helped herself with one of his cigarettes! If nowadays westerners permanently living in the Pacific still don't understand the local ways, how an English captain could have understood that in 1779??
-
My thoughts on paleo love?
#1 - Zero Contraception... no such thing as this stupid "safe sex" idiocy being propagated in the bullshit MSM.
#2 - Pro-Natal... may your tribe increase, they strived hard to deliberately reproduce.
#3 - They started very young... as soon as the girl was ready and looked ready... 12-16.
#4 - Selfish genes... Sperm wars... read those books. All forms and manners of successful reproductive technique varieties.
Everything above abhorrent to many of the 21st century Population Explosion scare mindset.
We are here today because of all of those successful reproductive strategies.
So successful the population controllers were very much concerned.
So the past 50+ years the population controllers tried very hard to teach the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what it is to "LOVE".
Remember that everything taught today is based on Population Control as the parent paradigm.
-
I try not to get idealistic about love, being more of a romantic than a realist.
I recommend reading "Lady Chatterley's Lover"
D.V. explains the dichotomy in, and the primal functions of love very well here.
Monogamy vs. Polyamory, w/Daniel Vitalis, episode #549 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwxvYhskLDk#)
-
Sorry, DV speaks too fast and not loud enough to be intelligible for a guy whom English isn’t his mother’s language. Moreover and like TD, I’m not a fan of long videos.
But the book you cite seems to be a good read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Chatterley%27s_Lover (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Chatterley%27s_Lover)
The novel is about Constance's realisation that she cannot live with the mind alone; she must also be alive physically. This realisation stems from a heightened sexual experience Constance has only felt with Mellors, suggesting that love can only happen with the element of the body, not the mind.
Of course!
-
Oh its a marvelous book, a salve for the lovers soul, filled with jewels of wisdom written by Larwance as he was dying.
Here are some other quotes
The book begins...
“Ours is essentially a tragic age, so we refuse to take it tragically. The cataclysm has happened, we are among the ruins, we start to build up new little habitats, to have new little hopes. It is rather hard work: there is now no smooth road into the future: but we go round, or scramble over the obstacles. We’ve got to live, no matter how many skies have fallen.”
“There's lots of good fish in the sea...maybe...but the vast masses seem to be mackerel or herring, and if you're not mackerel or herring yourself, you are likely to find very few good fish in the sea.”
“Vitally, the human race is dying. It is like a great uprooted tree, with its roots in the air. We must plant ourselves again in the universe.
“Me? Oh, intellectually I believe in having a good heart, a chirpy penis, a lively intelligence, and the courage to say ‘shit!’ in front of a lady.”
“If you could only tell them that living and spending isn't the same thing! But it's no good. If only they were educated to live instead of earn and spend, they could manage very happily...”
“because when i feel the human world is doomed, has doomed itself by its own mingy beastliness, then i feel the colonies aren't far enough. the moon wouldn't be far enough, because even there you could look back and see the earth, dirty, beastly, unsavory among all the stars: made foul by men. Then i feel i've swallowed gall, and its eating my inside out, and nowhere's far enough to get away. but when i get a turn, i forget it all again. though it's a shame, what's been done to people these last hundred years: men turned into nothing but labor-insects, and all their manhood taken away, and all their real life. i'd wipe the machines off the face of the earth again, and end the industrial epoch absolutely, like a black mistake. but since i can't, an' nobody can, i'd better hold my peace, an' try an' life my own life: if i've got one to live, which i rather doubt.”
“The world is a raving idiot, and no man can kill it: though I’ll do my best. But you’re right. We must rescue ourselves as best we can.”
“But, especially in love, only counterfeit emotions exist nowadays. We have all been taught to mistrust everybody emotionally, from parents downwards, or upwards. Don’t trust anybody with your real emotions: if you’ve got any: that is the slogan of today. Trust them with your money, even, but never with your feelings. They are bound to trample on them.”
“And however one might sentimentalise it, this sex business was one of the most ancient, sordid connections and subjections. Poets who glorified it were mostly men. Women had always known there was something better, something higher. And now they knew it more definitely than ever. The beautiful pure freedom of a woman was infinitely more wonderful than any sexual love. The only unfortunate thing was that men lagged so far behind women in the matter. They insisted on the sex thing like dogs.
And a woman had to yield. A man was like a child with his appetites. A woman had to yield him what he wanted, or like a child he would probably turn nasty and flounce away and spoil what was a very pleasant connection. But a woman could yield to a man without yielding her inner, free self. That the poets and talkers about sex did not seem to have taken sufficiently into account. A woman could take a man without really giving herself away. Certainly she could take him without giving herself into his power. Rather she could use this sex thing to have power over him. For she only had to hold herself back in sexual intercourse, and let him finish and expend himself without herself coming to the crisis: and then she could prolong the connection and achieve her orgasm and her crisis while he was merely her tool.”
“Yes there were two great groups of dogs wrangling for the bitching-goddess: the group of the flatterers, those who offered her amusement, stories, films, plays: and the other, much less showy, much more savage breed, those who gave her meat, the real substance of money. The well-groomed showy dogs of amusement wrangled and snarled among themselves for the favors of the bitch-goddess. But it was nothing to the silent fight-to-the-death that went on among the indispensables, the bone-bringers.”
-
That was nice.
>> And a woman had to yield. A man was like a child with his appetites. A woman had to yield him what he wanted, or like a child he would probably turn nasty and flounce away and spoil what was a very pleasant connection.
This sounds like "monogamy". Polygamy does not have this problem.
We used to have 1 male duck and 2 female ducks. One female duck was already sitting on her eggs. And the other female duck died due to eating lots of stones?
The male duck was getting nasty so we bought him an additional 2 female ducks to satisfy him.
-
Yes I notice that possessive and obsessive nature is very monogamy driven. Thanks for all the suggestions. I started sex at dawn and am halfway through already. Very interesting. Ill get on the others when I'm done.
-
Check this out guys....
http://www.thetaoofbadass.com/special/goldfish/?asp=onticked&utm_expid=42889565-4.Mxz1t9X0QjGt7ql7Q_L_0g.0&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fattractionsecretsrevealed.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fvideo2.html%3Fid%3DadA-1 (http://www.thetaoofbadass.com/special/goldfish/?asp=onticked&utm_expid=42889565-4.Mxz1t9X0QjGt7ql7Q_L_0g.0&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fattractionsecretsrevealed.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fvideo2.html%3Fid%3DadA-1)
-
Pre-selection is a great thing. This is why you should have a bunch of girls that are your friends... also helps if they are pretty too. And also why being a known playboy works. And why married men are found to be very attractive... because they have been pre-selected.
And why I tell young ladies to never tell their relatives or friends that their man is such a great guy. It paints a big bulls eye on their man... endorsed by another woman... endorsements sell.
-
GoodSamaritan knows his stuff ;).
Some guys have tried to cockblock me by saying that I am a player.. HA! did that backfire.
Initially the girl says that she doesnt want me anymore, but in the end.....
I do not understand this at all.. because the other way around.. I dont want a girl who has been with alot of men.
Why these double standards for attraction :o ?
-
And why I tell young ladies to never tell their relatives or friends that their man is such a great guy. It paints a big bulls eye on their man... endorsed by another woman... endorsements sell.
Hmm... In a normal, paleo-like situation, they should actually tell it because the more "their" man (if a paleo-women would consider a man as her own property, which was certainly never the case) has intercourse with other women, the more the supposed "owner" (!) of the men would benefit as well.
Would you go just a small step farther and advice ladies to tell their relatives or friends that "their" man is a real son of a bitch? ;)
Read the fabulous book linked by Aura:
http://thepiratebay.sx/torrent/6191785/ (http://thepiratebay.sx/torrent/6191785/)
I started into reading it and I can't stop. it is an absolute must read for everyone and each paleo-dieter.
-
I do not understand this at all.. because the other way around.. I dont want a girl who has been with alot of men.
Why these double standards for attraction :o ?
Because we live in an agricultural-industrial society where you and everyone of us are brainwashed by the utterly stupid "Standard Narrative of Human Sexual Evolution", as it is called by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá in "Sex at Dawn" linked in my above post.
-
Because we live in an agricultural-industrial society where you and everyone of us are brainwashed by the utterly stupid "Standard Narrative of Human Sexual Evolution", as called by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá in "Sex at Dawn" linked in my above post.
Does this mean it actually shouldnt bother me? Now I think of it, its kind of a possession thing aswell. I dont want to share my girls :P. But its weird that I get turned off by it and girls seem to get turned on by it.. ???
-
Not only it shouldn't bother us at all: on the contrary we should be glad for somebody we love if this person gets a lot of love-energy-info from different sides and if it makes her happy. :)
It's of course a different matter if she's raped, goes into prostitution or has loveless genital relations for obscure purposes with possessive and/or selfish guys who don't care about her happiness but just want to discharge their balls — as is so often the case. >D
For the double standard in our society, perhaps it is that the most young girls want an experienced guy since they are shy to teach to a male, while the guys prefer to interact with a girl to which they can teach their own way. I suppose it’s a cultural thing too.
-
Check this out guys....
http://www.thetaoofbadass.com/special/goldfish/?asp=onticked&utm_expid=42889565-4.Mxz1t9X0QjGt7ql7Q_L_0g.0&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fattractionsecretsrevealed.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fvideo2.html%3Fid%3DadA-1 (http://www.thetaoofbadass.com/special/goldfish/?asp=onticked&utm_expid=42889565-4.Mxz1t9X0QjGt7ql7Q_L_0g.0&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fattractionsecretsrevealed.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fvideo2.html%3Fid%3DadA-1)
That was a fun little video to watch :).
The thing that GS already mentioned, preselection.. is a good thing that the maker of the video mentions.
But I feel its another PUA who is selling his technique bullshit. Excuse me for my language.
If your attractive to a girl.. it does not matter what you do or say.. its not where you look or the way u stand.. wtf who comes up with this stuff.
The goldfish thing he talks about is interesting.. he mentions how all the females are interested in the male with the brightest color (healthiest looking).. which is a fact. Funny thing is.. Ive noticed how this same principle works for men aswell..
Have u ever noticed how geeks are in a lot of cases very pale? At the same time.. the men who have very good complexion.. (healthy red glow) seem to get the girls most of the time. Its a sign of health.. its oxygen travelling through the body in a rich and easy way. I could go on more about this.. but in the future I will write a short book on my observations and view. Also on how to increase the oxygen etc. etc.
Just my 2 cents.. :-*
-
I agree about this too long video. He says its only there for 24 h, but it’s been there for months.
About jealousy, GCB theorizes that it gets inverted when there’s love in a triangular relation. Naturally, each person in this “triangle” would have her/his own other love relation(s) with some outsider(s), so that the whole tribe is bond together by a web or honeycomb structure of physical-sexual-genital relationships. This, as is clearly stated in “Sex at Dawn”, is an absolute necessity for a tribe cohesion and even its existence, as love tragedies would be extremely damaging for the whole tribe and had to be absolutely avoided.
It would probably be more logical to say that the natural and normal propensity of foragers to share everything has been inverted into jealousy by the social rules necessary to large agrarian societies.
Anyway, humans apparently have a natural safeguard against harmful genital relationships with possessive and egotistic individuals. It’s a drive which could be confused with jealousy but is very different because it is rooted in justice and integrity instead of selfishness and possessiveness. Currently, there’s no word for it as it has been confused with jealousy, so GCB named it “Excalibur drive” according to the legendary sacred sword of King Arthur. 8)
-
Thank you for the link to the book! Summary sounds very interesting! Downloading now.
-
I finished "Sex at dawn" and enjoyed it VERY much. It shared info that my feelings have directed me towards for a long time and resolved a lot of inner conflict I had regarding living a polyamorous lifestyle in a monogamous culture.
The odd thing is I now see everywhere how much post-agriculturalism has permeated through everything. This concept of ownership being placed on things that simply don't belong to anyone. A deer was running through my orchard (even that's possessive) and by law we are supposed to chase them out. I personally want to shoot a deer here soon so I can get "free" meat. It's absurd that the government can place a mandate that they own the deer: they charge you to get a license to shoot them, so in turn, you are buying that wild deer from the government, all done in the name of regulation and control. In the same way, people's sexuality cannot be owned by anyone else. Even owning their own sexuality can be selfish. We are a promiscuous species.
After all, possession is 9/10 of the law.
-
They do teach really good ethics and how to keep deer populations sustainable in those classes, and a lot of basic forest info and safety. Pretty much the government is our tribe now, and we are all part of this kind of fucked up global community, that is so impersonal it doesn't work for anyone. Its like in schools, we send our children off to learn how to be part of the tribe through public education. Worst. Idea. Ever. We aren't passed down many skills, and certainaly not any that pertain to obtaining real sustenance from life, whether very basically physically, like how to build shelter and hunt food and keep warm and get water etcetc...these are such super abstract concepts now, because of this new lifeform of technology on the earth. I think technology, like this thing we are all communicating through, has to be considered something more than what we create and benign because we are totally being altered with every advancement it makes.
-
That was a fun little video to watch :).
The thing that GS already mentioned, preselection.. is a good thing that the maker of the video mentions.
But I feel its another PUA who is selling his technique bullshit. Excuse me for my language.
If your attractive to a girl.. it does not matter what you do or say.. its not where you look or the way u stand.. wtf who comes up with this stuff.
The goldfish thing he talks about is interesting.. he mentions how all the females are interested in the male with the brightest color (healthiest looking).. which is a fact. Funny thing is.. Ive noticed how this same principle works for men aswell..
You miss the point of the goldfish analogy. Female goldfish when having to choose between two males that are equal in appearance will choose to mate with the one who is mating all the others females.
He is saying that many women operate in the same way, they are automatically attracted to a male whom they perceive other women to be attracted to and will ignore a male whom they perceive is undesirable by others, regardless of the merits of the individual male.
It's a generalization for sure, but its one I have also witnessed to be true. When I am speaking to a third party, in praise of my girlfriend, or even make some reference regarding a girl who likes me, I can often notice from the corner of my eyes that if a woman is around she will pick up her ears and have a look of longing on her face.
It's the gold fish effect.
-
You miss the point of the goldfish analogy. Female goldfish when having to choose between two males that are equal in appearance will choose to mate with the one who is mating all the others females.
He is saying that many women operate in the same way, they are automatically attracted to a male whom they perceive other women to be attracted to and will ignore a male whom the perceive is undesirable by others, regardless of the merits of the individual male.
Its a generalization for sure, but its one I have also witnessed to be true. When I am speaking to a third party, in praise of my girlfriend, or even make some reference regarding a girl who likes me, I can often notice from the corner of my eyes that if a women is around she will pick up her ears and have a look of longing on her face.
Its the gold fish effect.
I totally got that analogy, dont worry :). Its pre selection in the goldfish world.
But do you really think this is true for all men tho? Because I feel like it just works on men who already get alot of women, not on those who have been unsuccesful for years. To prove a point, let me use this example:
-Is a fat, bald dude, with glasses and big nose and ears and no front teeth.. ever gonna get as many chances with girls as a guy who has all the characteristics of a handsome man? I think most people would say no.
So.. not many women are going to sleep with him. And girls know this.. no matter what u want to make them believe with tricks or lies. Women can totally see in an instant if a man has success with women because of attraction.
The goldfish thing.. he talks about the brightest color fishes getting the most attention, but just ONE fish will get all the ladies. My guess is that this ONE fish.. is just a slight bit more healthy than the other bright fish. I don't know for sure, I will admit that.. but to me (the way I view it) it makes sense that females mate with the healthiest specimen.
The same thing goes for the peacock or the gorilla and probably more animals.
But, I am open to being convinced otherwise.. because I'm interested in learning more. I'm just asking questions and putting examples out there.. to share the way I interpret a situation. :D
So someone who looks like your average joe.. who has become the ultimate womanizer with these tricks.. speak up!!
-
You can fake the goldfish thing.
Have girl... friends.... in the friend zone as part of your gang. You can also use relatives, sister, cousins, etc.
-
You can fake the goldfish thing.
Have girl... friends.... in the friend zone as part of your gang. You can also use relatives, sister, cousins, etc.
Sure u can. But should it Always be necessary to have girlfriends around in order to get a woman interested?
And maybe if a man gets them interested, when hes alone with them.. does this mean theyre automatically aroused?
My point is.. theres more to it than just tricking them in. Plus.. does a man have to create all these circumstances and step-by-step plan in order to get a girl? :o
-
no scheming involved. men(and women) just need to be honestly confident men(and women).
you don't have to be at a club getting inebriated. I always think you should be in your best light wherever you are, doing what makes you shine, being in the image you would want a perfect mate to catch you in.
I live in a very social community at the moment. I see people chatting all the time. single and couples of healthy people hang out in the parks.... playing, stretching, making music, laughing, out side the health food stores, in book stores, in the library, pretty general places, and you can tell those who are happy, or at least confident in themselves, they make eye contact, smile, say hi, have a short chat with you if they are interested. that's how true relationships form aside from "picking up" people at bars and such. you become part of their lives, you are someone they have things in common with and want to share with, you become friends, friends with their friends, etcetcetc.
I get smiled at by men and women alike in this community, old and young, people are just happy and grateful here. there doesn't feel like so much competition, people are satisfied, enough to go around, share, etc...its a much different dynamic.
ill finish this elaboration later.
-
Sure u can. But should it Always be necessary to have girlfriends around in order to get a woman interested?
And maybe if a man gets them interested, when hes alone with them.. does this mean theyre automatically aroused?
My point is.. theres more to it than just tricking them in. Plus.. does a man have to create all these circumstances and step-by-step plan in order to get a girl? :o
It depends on the country you are in. It's a big world with variety.
I have never had a problem with women in my country and I don't need to apply any of those pickup artist stuff.
When I was much younger, the university thing was easy, just approach the woman and introduce myself directly or even dramatically.
My POV is that women get at an age or a stage where they want to reproduce... any other stage they are in where they do not want to reproduce is pointless in even trying... women are the hunters of sperm. We men just have to be ever ready when we get picked up / chosen.
Money talks big and loud with poorer women. Of course people in Paleo Times didn't have a money system.
-
Sure u can. But should it Always be necessary to have girlfriends around in order to get a woman interested?
And maybe if a man gets them interested, when hes alone with them.. does this mean theyre automatically aroused?
My point is.. theres more to it than just tricking them in. Plus.. does a man have to create all these circumstances and step-by-step plan in order to get a girl? :o
Capitalizing on the goldfish effect is not a trick os scheme, its an appropriate method of using deep seated primal phenomenon to attract mates, that hearkens back to the days of primitive matriarchal tribal cultures. Women are deeply influenced by the preselection of desirable traits of the other women within their clan. The matriarchal nature is far more concerned about how other women perceive them than they are about what the men think. So if some members in the clan view a male as worthy and desirable it will influence the others toward desiring that same male over other males of equal merit, whom may be more available.
In primitive cultures the ideal was a man who was the strongest and most capable provider, one who was kind, caring, and devoted toward the whole tribe( Kinsman, females and children). Why wouldn't all the women want to give their love to such a man.
This primal nature of love was somehow culturally perverted, as society became complicated by cleavery devised games. During the rise of civilization there was the emergence tricksters who learned how to mimic culturally ingrained merits that triggered the mechanism of attraction and were able to gain the affections of mates, without ever having to provide any primal benefit to society.
This trend toward perversion of the primal love mechanics is supremely manifest by the capitalization of sex by Madison avenue. Social engineers motivated by personal greed have learned how to manipulate these primal urges in order to prophet from making whores of civilized man.
The inverse of goldfish theory is especially true... if the group of females has rejected a male, then even if an individual female has an attraction for him, she will suppress it, if she believes the other females would think poorly of her choice.
Who knows there may even be subtle differences that can only be picked up subconsciously that leads to some men getting flocks of fan girls.
Forget the wing man, if you want to make it with the women get some wing girls.
-
Capitalizing on the goldfish effect is not a trick os scheme, its an appropriate method of using deep seated primal phenomenon to attract mates, that hearkens back to the days of primitive matriarchal tribal cultures. Women are deeply influenced by the preselection of desirable traits of the other women within their clan. The matriarchal nature is far more concerned about how other women perceive them than they are about what the men think. So if some members in the clan view a male as worthy and desirable it will influence the others toward desiring that same male over other males of assimilate merit, whom may be more available.
In primitive cultures the ideal was a man who was the strongest and most capable provider, one who was kind, caring, and devoted toward the whole tribe( Kinsman, females and children). Why wouldn't all the women want to give their love to such a man.
This primal nature of love was somehow culturally perverted, as society became complicated by cleavery devised games. During the rise of civilization there was the emergence tricksters who learns how to mimic culturally ingrained merits that triggered the mechanism of attraction and were able to gain the affections mates, without ever having to provide any primal benefit to society.
This trend toward perversion of the primal love mechanics is supremely manifest by the capitalization of sex by Madison avenue. Social engineers motivated by personal greed have learned how to manipulate these primal urges in order to prophet from making whores of civilized man.
The inverse of goldfish theory is especially true... if the group of females has rejected a male, then even if an individual female has an attraction for him, she will suppress it, if she believes the other females would think poorly of her choice.
Who knows there may even be subtle differences that can only be picked up subconsciously that leads to some men getting flocks of fan girls.
Forget the wing man, if you want to make it with the women get some wing girls.
I understand your view and I agree with the observation.. and I can go a long way with your view.. but maybe a different explanation.
I feel like.. actual experience with women.. makes a man better with women.
If I choose to stop dating girls for a month.. I have a hard time getting back in there.. (attraction is initially still there.. but goes away because I feel uncomfortable).
When I mess around with girls for a straight week.. it gets so easy.. its ridiculous... and these girls did not even see me with a girl other than them.
Its like a Vibe I get in.. the longer I stop.. the harder it is to get back in.
Though.. being an attractive male gets u way more opportunities, no matter what circumstances..
So being around women makes a man comfortable with women and thus makes it easier to connect with other girls. So in that way I can totally agree with having girls around a man may help him. BUT for actually creating that Lust, that burning desire to have sex.. I just dont see how this would work.
Hey, but having girls that are friends.. is Always good ;D!