Last edited:
What would it mean if telegony was proven in humans?
- Thread starter Rembrandt Brown
- Start date
There is hard science behind why men are instinctively repelled by women who've slept with numerous men.
Telegony is something every young woman needs to study before she decides to sleep around for fun.
There's nothing healthy or normal about a so called "slut phase".
I guarantee you no man wants that...
Telegony is something every young woman needs to study before she decides to sleep around for fun.
There's nothing healthy or normal about a so called "slut phase".
I guarantee you no man wants that...
Hoes would still be hoes.
Some people have to much time on their hands
Human and animal biology will always be amazing.. Good post YP.
This theory validates male reluctance to engage woman with promiscuous past.
This theory validates womens complaints on gender double standard pertaining to promiscuity.
This theory validates male reluctance to engage woman with promiscuous past.
This theory validates womens complaints on gender double standard pertaining to promiscuity.
Want? Yea, you are correct. But a man will still smash, human nature will always win in the end if a man has testosterone in his system.
An important correction would be "would validate" rather than "validates" since it isn't proven or even a serious contention at this point.
Re: male reluctance, the entire idea of genetic compulsion a) toward certain behaviors or b) influencing or even dictating beliefs has mind-blowing implications. It is generally accepted in some areas, ranging from alcoholism to anti-gay/homophobic attitudes, but I don't think it has been nearly fully grappled with.
The "would" is implicit in the preceding term "theory". Further, theories are subscribed to and used as validation or justification often YP.
If this were true, wouldn't it make sense for men to be naturally predisposed toward monogamy? Even if nature compels you to spread your DNA as much as possible, doing so in just one relationship is more likely to allow you to do so purely, unless you believe you're having sex with a string of virgins.
Men should be slut-shamed more harshly if this were true. Men would be smart to form a pact and not fuck the same women in a manner BIG described as "just pass around shit, pass the shit like a cold and shit."
Men should be slut-shamed more harshly if this were true. Men would be smart to form a pact and not fuck the same women in a manner BIG described as "just pass around shit, pass the shit like a cold and shit."
Even without the theory women's complaints of a double standard are valid. Slut-shaming and the general negative attitude towards women's sexual behavior and the real need to control it are enough with this theory...
And even without the theory men are gonna be reluctant to seriously engage with promiscuous women.
thats not true...I would submit fucking a woman raw and impregnating is a serious engagement. Men engage with women seriously all the time.. Hell the run up to fucking REQUIRES establishing some level of connection. Its usually where alot of implied promises and such occurs.
At the end of the day needing promiscuous women then judging them negatively for their promiscuity is contradictory and hypocritical. Particularly in this day and age.
Most men refuse to see things from the other side. They condemn promiscuous women but refuse to take any ownership of their role in perpetuating promiscuity.
do you realize the paradox in what you said?
What men were you raised by or around? Physical contact and intimacy isnt a serious engagement to most men. Men- generally- can detach emotions and commitment from intercourse. Guys will fuck without attachment routinely. Who men fuck and who they take seriously are seldom joined at the hip.
No it isnt. It may be judgmental, it may be unfair, it may be irrational... But it isnt contradictory. Saying as much presumes men actually need promiscuous women and that all men encourage promiscuity while simultaneously criticize it. Neither is the case.
What paradox? You continue to use labels you dont seem to understand. Theres no inherent conflict in the statement he made.
The same can be said for women. Again we're living in an age where sex and the consequences of it are no longer a sure thing. Hell pregnancy was removed from sexual activity with the advent of the Pill some 70 years ago and more preventative technology has been added since. Women can fuck as much as men can without consequences...so the idea of holding them to some old-world way of thinking about sex is pointless. And just wanting to control someone.
you realize where you are right?? let me remind you...
this is only possible because these women WANT TO DO THAT SHIT and yet most men look down on them for it. After jerking off to it of course
really... men don't want babies with hoes and hoes have bad ass kids
please tell me how are these "hoes" having badass kids if it not with men?
I'll wait.
No it cant. Most women arent wired that way. Nor do they behave that way.. Its OK to admit that there are inherent differences in male and female behavior. There is nothing oppressive in acknowledging that. Pretending that we are the same minus genitalia is fairytale bullshit.
They are as sure a thing today as they ever have been. Where are you getting this shit from?
The merits of the critique are debatable. Im merely saying that men will hold them accountable regardless. And that men and women are not identical in make up and behavior so the idea of "double standards" is at very least flawed. You're kinda all over the place. Feel free to focus and reply to one fluid point.
Whats your point? Again, i think you struggle with understanding the concept of hypocrisy.
Let me try to illustrate another way: I like fried fish from time to time. I will never fry fish inside my home. If i came to your home and it smelled like fish grease i would tell you your home stinks... Is this hypocritical?
Exactly. Muthafuckas trying to get all deep up in here. It’s quite simple.
Calling this paradoxical implies that its contradictory on its face... It isnt. Its actually the opposite. Those are two congruent statements and lines of thought illustrating the problems associated with so called hoes and why men find them problematic. Men dont like promiscuous woman due to the potential baggage they come with.. That baggage can come in the form of misbehaved children. Not sure why you dont understand that.
Wes Craven made a movie about it but it was to the extreme. His mother was a nun trapped, hidden, and raped by deviants around the clock until the staff found her.
So it runs in men but that's not the same for women.....
if men don't like promiscuous women due o the potential baggage they come with...then who is impregnating all these promiscuous women so that they have badass kids in the first place?? It seems men are creating the issue they have a problem with...
ah, so that's your agenda for this shit.
wrong. men don't give a fuck how purely it's done. they are programmed to fuck and procreate. purity is a man made idea.
Men don't like used hoes because they want to be the one to conquer. An accomplishment. A whore makes you look like you got no game and it's too easy. They are not thinking, hmm, my kid won't be as pure due to telegony and DNA reconstructing. I suppose I will not nut on this day.
Stop.
I would say in behavior men and women have more in common than not. Especially where desire and lust and the want for sex is concerned.
And i was talking about using contraceptives and the day after pill etc. Today sexual activity doesn't have to lead to giving birth like it did 100 years ago. Mind you we're talking 1920.
As far a double standards who are we to hold women to a certain standard and who holds us to any standard when it comes to sexual behavior?? We want to have raw sex and we want her to have raw sex with us BUT we don't want to deal with the consequences of it and hold her responsible for those consequences. hence why promiscuous women have bad ass kids right? Then we judge her for it say shes not worthy of love then look for another woman to have raw sex with. Seems to me like we're creating the thing we abhor. It may not be hypocritical or paradoxical but its definitely fucked up.
Last edited:
CHILD SUPPORT BE DAMNED!
I think the biological theory makes more sense. People like to believe in souls because the idea is romantic and mystical. But is it all that romantic to believe rape victims are eternally tied to their rapists?
Science is man's way of discovering what God has already created. I don't have an opinion on it one way or another, but it's basically the same concept that has been preached in religious circles for years, as a reason to not engage in premarital sex.
Science didn't discover the sun revolving around the earth like God supposedly said it did. Or the sun and moon being the same age, creation being a few thousand years ago, etc.
I wonder why pre-marital sex was thought to be so bad-- I suppose assigning responsibility to children, secondarily to a man's right to marry a virgin.