Dick Dasterdly

Interesting, but true.
Women are much more skillful and deadly creatures of prey by far than their male counterparts,....IMHO,......and experience.

bil

If you go for a male that is not taken you have no idea if he is any good. A male that has been selected by another woman has a better chance of being a good choice genetically speaking.

As to why there is the sisterhood? it's a great way of getting rid of a male that you have already bred with, and it guarantees you a pool of alternative sperm donors to choose from.

bil

Lying to a woman is very hard because they have such excellent data recall and storage, as a rule.

However, if they want to believe something is true you can tell them any old crap and they will believe it all.

Again, this just applies to most of them, there are exceptions.

Dick Dasterdly

....and because of their computer-like memory banks, it gives them a big edge with regard to various mind games,deception and other predatory activities.
However I have to agree your second statement also applies whenever it suits them,...in which case all forms of logic go straight out of the window.
Very strange creatures!
However underestimate them at your peril.

bil

Plus men are disadvantaged by being blinded by testosterone. Basically, we just don't think. If you ever want some real fun, when a woman offers you sex, turn it down. I guarantee you spectacular fireworks.

That's why I think that for men, the expression 'in love' should be changed to '****struck'

whitelinen

You said it Bil but once again please dont include all men in your wafflings.

Reading the last few messages certainly puts some males firmly in the animal category.

I have heard it say that certain British men say/think that any hole is a goal..... that some of them are human females is merely random/chance.

Is that because they are testosterone fuelled or just not thinking?

bil

That quote is misleading. I said men in general tend not to think because we are blinded by testosterone. A very different meaning.

Women exploit that all the time.

The huge joke is that men are driven by their hormones, but women far more so. People just don't look at it in the right way. If they did, they would see that women very often have a very nasty side to them.

Bijilo123

I have nominated you for the Nobel Prize in Medecine.

Dick Dasterdly

...or else leading contender for the post of Minister of the Bleedin' Obvious.

Heads down lads,..prepare for incoming fire!...

agoreira

I have not nominated you for the Nobel Prize in Spelling!

bil

No, not the obvious ones. I was thinking more about the drive to breed and the evolutionary pressure on that.

Here's a fun question for you. Try and give an evolutionary hypothesis as to why so many women are perfectly foul each month, why so many lose libido so massively after childbirth, and why as a species females go thru a menopause.

rugbymatt

I wonder how much damage his comments really caused now.

whitelinen

I expect there are men who would consider that their wives were being nasty if they didnt get the dinner on the table at 6 o clock or who overcooked an egg.

Fortunately I have never met a man like that and from my experience can confidently state that men with balls dont have a problem with women.

Dick Dasterdly

Think I'll just sit this one out and hang on to my credentials.

bil

We aren't talking about pointless, stupid machismo here. Women range on a scale from partner to parasite, and you had best hope you find one at the good end of the scale. At the nasty end are the vamps as they were called in the 50s or whenever it was. Short for vampire, as they would suck your bank account dry. We had one in the family. A very nasty piece of work she was, and she moved from married man to married man, with a skill that left me breathless. She already had the next one lined up by the time the last few pounds were trickling out of the last sucker's account.

IMO a lot of the problems between men and women come from the fact that were are plains apes with attitude, on top of which is layered a VERY thin veneer of civilisation.

It is hard to explain the unpleasantness of women each month, and the reduction in libido after childbirth unless you postulate that there is an evolutionary advantage in it somewhere.

After all, when you realise that 'love' is just a chemical imbalance things make more sense. (Romantic love is akin to obsessive compulsive disorder apparantly, and is linked to a serotonin imbalance) whereas long term love, the glue that holds a long term relationship together is triggered by oxytocin, the chemical released by the body after orgasm.

Post childbirth the oxytocin reward cycle is thougt to shift in women from their partners to the child, especially when breastfeeding, and this is thought to trigger the crash in libido that happens in a lot of cases.

Fascinating, because this would seem to be counterintuitive. After all, a woman with a new child is supposed to need the support of a partner, so why would she lose libido and thus reduce the sex and the oxytocin?

One hypothesis would be that evolutionary/breeding success can follow one of two paths. Select a mate and then stick with that one for all your breeding history. Or, once you have bred with one, get rid of him and attempt to breed with another one higher up the fitness scale, which would maximise your chances of passing on your genes.

Since a woman is not strong enough to throw a man out on his ear, what better way than to turn off the sex? That way the next woman passing who wants to breed will take him off your hands.

It also accounts for why women can be so foul on a monthly basis. Your breeding options are limited, so if a male hasn't got you pregnant then at the end of each month he has an excellent chance of getting fed up and moving on, giving you a crack at a fertile male.

Menopause it is thought takes you out of competition with you daughters, so you can put yourself to work looking after and helping with your grandchildren. That would appear to give the evolutionary edge to that strategy.