Toronto Escorts

How many of you GAVE UP on dating figuring your just too undesirable to women?

Scott75

New member
Jan 29, 2012
83
0
0
If you subscribe to the selfish gene theory,
I do; did you read the book by the same name written by biologist Richard Dawkins?

then it is appearant that my genes have simply been weeded out.
Genes can't be considered to be weeded out until you die or become infertile. Until then, possibilities still remain.

Masturbation using a fleshlight to waste sperm is blamed on the collective rejection by woman so I really shouldn't feel guilty about that sin, after all, it is natural response to rejection of the beta-male sperm by women. I should feel free to look at pics and masturbate....but I feel guilty when I do that still.
Why do you think you feel guilty about this?
 

evilbaga

Member
Jul 2, 2010
235
0
16
I do; did you read the book by the same name written by biologist Richard Dawkins?



Genes can't be considered to be weeded out until you die or become infertile. Until then, possibilities still remain.



Why do you think you feel guilty about this?
Ive read that in Africa, where promiscuity is rampant - men actually invest more in their sister's children than their own (wife's) children.
This gene stuff runs deep.
 

Scott75

New member
Jan 29, 2012
83
0
0
Ive read that in Africa, where promiscuity is rampant - men actually invest more in their sister's children than their own (wife's) children.
This gene stuff runs deep.
Apparently, it wasn't always so. Here's an excerpt from a book I've started reading, Sex at Dawn:
…we argue that women's seemingly consistent preference for men with access to wealth is not a result of innate evolutionary programming, as the standard model asserts, but simply a behavioural adaptation to a world in which men control a disproportionate share of the world's resources. As we'll explore in detail, before the advent of agriculture a hundred centuries ago, women typically had as much access to food, protection and social support as did men. We'll see that upheavals in human societies resulting from the shift to settled living in agricultural communities brought radical changes to women's ability to survive. Suddenly, women lived in a world where they had to barter their reproductive capacity for access to the resources and protection they needed to survive. But these conditions are very different from those in which our species had been evolving previously.

It's important to keep in mind that when viewed against the full scale of our species' existence, ten thousand years is but a brief moment. Even if we ignore the roughly two million years since the emergence of our Homo lineage, in which our direct ancestors lived in small foraging social groups, anatomically modern humans are estimated to have existed as long as 200,000 years.* With the earliest evidence of agriculture dating to about 8000 BCE, the amount of time our species has spent living in settled agricultural societies represents just 5 percent of our collective experience, at most. As recently as a few hundred years ago, most of the planet was still occupied by foragers.
Later on, it states:
Several types of evidence suggest our pre-agricultural
(prehistoric) ancestors lived in groups where most mature
individuals would have had several ongoing sexual
relationships at any given time. Though often casual, these
relationships were not random or meaningless. Quite the
opposite: they reinforced crucial social ties holding these
highly interdependent communities together.

We’ve found overwhelming evidence of a decidedly casual,
friendly prehistory of human sexuality echoed in our own
bodies, in the habits of remaining societies still lingering in
relative isolation, and in some surprising corners of
contemporary Western culture. We’ll show how our bedroom
behavior, porn preferences, fantasies, dreams, and sexual
responses all support this reconfigured understanding of our
sexual origins. Questions you’ll find answered in the
following pages include:

• Why is long-term sexual fidelity so difficult for so
many couples?

• Why does sexual passion often fade, even as love
deepens?

• Why are women potentially multi-orgasmic, while
men all too often reach orgasm frustratingly quickly
and then lose interest?

• Is sexual jealousy an unavoidable, uncontrollable part
of human nature?

• Why are human testicles so much larger than those of
gorillas but smaller than those of chimps?

• Can sexual frustration make us sick? How did a lack
of orgasms cause one of the most common diseases
in history, and how was it treated?
I haven't gotten to the answers yet, but I'm working on it, laugh :)

A little more:
A Few Million Years in a Few Pages

In a nutshell, here’s the story we tell in the following pages:
A few million years ago, our ancient ancestors (Homo
erectus) shifted from a gorilla-like mating system where an
alpha male fought to win and maintain a ********** of females to
one in which most males had sexual access to females. Few,
if any experts dispute the fossil evidence for this shift.

But we part company from those who support the standard
narrative when we look at what this shift signifies. The
standard narrative holds that this is when long-term pair
bonding began in our species: if each male could have only
one female mate at a time, most males would end up with a
girl to call their own. Indeed, where there is debate about the
nature of innate human sexuality, the only two acceptable
options appear to be that humans evolved to be either
monogamous (M–F) or polygynous (M–FFF+)—with the
conclusion normally being that women generally prefer the
former configuration while most men would opt for the latter.
But what about multiple mating, where most males and
females have more than one concurrent sexual relationship?
Why—apart from moral disgust—is prehistoric promiscuity
not even considered, when nearly every relevant source of
evidence points in that direction?
After all, we know that the foraging societies in which human
beings evolved were small-scale, highly egalitarian groups
who shared almost everything. There is a remarkable
consistency to how immediate return foragers live—wherever
they are.
*
The !Kung San of Botswana have a great deal in
common with Aboriginal people living in outback Australia
and tribes in remote pockets of the Amazon rainforest.
Anthropologists have demonstrated time and again that
immediate-return hunter-gatherer societies are nearly
universal in their fierce egalitarianism. Sharing is not just
encouraged; it’s mandatory. Hoarding or hiding food, for
example, is considered deeply shameful, almost unforgivable
behavior in these societies.

Foragers divide and distribute meat equitably, breastfeed one
another’s babies, have little or no privacy from one another,
and depend upon each other for survival. As much as our
social world revolves around notions of private property and
individual responsibility, theirs spins in the opposite
direction, toward group welfare, group identity, profound
interrelation, and mutual dependence.
Though this may sound like naïve New Age idealism,
whining over the lost Age of Aquarius, or a celebration of
prehistoric communism, not one of these features of
pre-agricultural societies is disputed by serious scholars. The
overwhelming consensus is that egalitarian social
organization is the de-facto system for foraging societies in
all environments. In fact, no other system could work for
foraging societies. Compulsory sharing is simply the best way
to distribute risk to everyone’s benefit: participation
mandatory. Pragmatic? Yes. Noble? Hardly.
And then they get to the part that I find to be the most interesting. I bold my favourite part:
We believe this sharing behavior extended to sex as well. A
great deal of research from primatology, anthropology,
anatomy, and psychology points to the same fundamental
conclusion: human beings and our hominid ancestors have
spent almost all of the past few million years or so in small,
intimate bands in which most adults had several sexual
relationships at any given time. This approach to sexuality
probably persisted until the rise of agriculture and private
property no more than ten thousand years ago. In addition to
voluminous scientific evidence, many explorers, missionaries,
and anthropologists support this view, having penned
accounts rich with tales of orgiastic rituals, unflinching mate
sharing, and an open sexuality unencumbered by guilt or
shame.
If you spend time with the primates closest to human beings,
you’ll see female chimps having intercourse dozens of times
per day, with most or all of the willing males, and rampant
bonobo group sex that leaves everyone relaxed and maintains
intricate social networks. Explore contemporary human
beings’ lust for particular kinds of pornography or our
notorious difficulties with long-term sexual monogamy and
you’ll soon stumble over relics of our hypersexual ancestors.


Our bodies echo the same story. The human male has testicles
far larger than any monogamous primate would ever need,
hanging vulnerably outside the body where cooler
temperatures help preserve stand-by sperm cells for multiple
ejaculations. He also sports the longest, thickest penis found
on any primate on the planet, as well as an embarrassing
tendency to reach orgasm too quickly. Women’s pendulous
breasts (utterly unnecessary for breastfeeding children),
impossible-to-ignore cries of delight (female copulatory
vocalization to the clipboard-carrying crowd), and capacity
for orgasm after orgasm all support this vision of prehistoric
promiscuity. Each of these points is a major snag in the
standard narrative.
As the authors say, our testicles aren't quite as large as that of chimps... still, I thought that bolded part was just.. wow.
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,087
0
0
Wow, this threads been busy overnight. A quick read and my first reaction is doesn't anyone remember the comments from some of the ladies earlier, where they basically said, height and looks aren't that important, work on a personality, and get over it.
 

HentaiRanger

Member
Apr 26, 2009
252
3
18
Toronto
White women.
why limit yourself to white women? what makes white women so special?

I limit myself to Asian women in regards to hobbying, however I'll date any woman of any race, creed or religion . So far I tried one white,black and east Indian sp. The rest were Asian.
 

Libra

Member
Apr 8, 2011
511
3
18
They are fraternal not identical twins.

My dad has traits that are like polar oppoite to my uncle. My uncle, talks, acts, and behaves like an alpha-male out of control. He calls the shots. Married a white woman, divorced her, lives by himself, takes advantage of women for sex, bascially is in charge of his life. My dad on the other had, behaves like a beta male, he could not marry a white woman and had to marry a black woman because whites didn't want him. (Not to sound racist, but in the 70's, it was prejudicial - I'm making a point that for a white man to marry a black woman due to lack of options with white woman means basically any black woman back then would want you). My Uncle took advantage of him, and my dad always lets him do that. The family disrespected my dad, stole his money, his properties, and my dad still sucks up and sees them.

Without going further into this, my dad and my uncle are too different being faternal twins and I'm pulling a genetic card on this one.

If you subscribe to the selfish gene theroy, then it is appearant that my genes have simply been weeded out. Masturbation using a fleshlight to waste sperm is blamed on the collective rejection by woman so I really shouldn't feel guilty about that sin, after all, it is natural response to rejection of the beta-male sperm by women. I should feel free to look at pics and masturbate....but I feel guilty when I do that still.
Sheesh, that's a pretty sad story. At least the part on how he lets himself get taken advantage of and walked all over.

And not to split hairs but your pops would have been an "Omega" male. Beta's are the 'second-in-command' to alpha's, and they are definitely not weak squeamish people (or wolves). I'd rather piss off an alpha male/female than a beta male/female.

Police and security guards are mostly made up of people who behave beta.
 

evilbaga

Member
Jul 2, 2010
235
0
16
Apparently, it wasn't always so. Here's an excerpt from a book I've started reading, Sex at Dawn:
***BIG ASS QUOTES***
I haven't got around to reading that yet (or your quotes)... but I guess its worth it and Ill get it from the TPL soon.

For now, another book worth reading is "Sperm Wars".
 

evilbaga

Member
Jul 2, 2010
235
0
16
why limit yourself to white women? what makes white women so special?

I limit myself to Asian women in regards to hobbying, however I'll date any woman of any race, creed or religion . So far I tried one white,black and east Indian sp. The rest were Asian.
I dunno. You dont choose what you're attracted to. Besides, most of the women who like(d) me were white - that in itself could mold my brain.
However, if you read "Fair Women, Dark Men: The Forgotten Roots of Color Prejudice", you'd see this preference was there even hundreds of years ago.
A *partial* reason, I suppose is whiter skin is how males identify fertility in females. For most races, the female is lighter skin colored than the male... but only during the reproductive years - due to hormonal changes and subcutaneous fat deposition. Females are all over the board on this, some preferring dark skin, some light - but males have a much clearer trend to prefer lighter skin tones.
 

Partyman1970

Banned
Nov 13, 2011
411
0
0
I was not trying to be demeaning to any 5' guy. As someone suggested he could find a woman 5' or a little shorter interested in him. BUT 3-4 inches shorter would make her 4'7" How many women around are 4'7"? Ok I am no expert on this but I don't recall seeing any lady that short & I am thinking that is more midget height. I saw a program on t.v. about these midget social dating conventions. Many of the guys were 5' or a little shorter. The women in the 4'5" or so range. So just putting the suggestion out there as a very possible route. NOT to insult anyone.
 

Scott75

New member
Jan 29, 2012
83
0
0

prestokeys

Banned
Oct 1, 2011
3,578
0
36
Ok, I'm going to shed some new light into this whole thread. And perhaps some guys here will feel much better:

I've found over the years that dating women is a WASTE OF TIME! I'm 6'4, lean and fit, have a full head of hair like a teenager, and many women have said to me personally that they find me very attractive. At least when I was younger and actually interested in dating (I'm 39 now). Now I stay away from them and will bash my head if I try to figure out how much time (and money) I've wasted on them. For certain, the sex with them was not worth it! Now my favourite pasttimes give me the most joy in life, and indeed a 100 times more joy than those women. Dating now would simply be trading my valuable hobby time for a path to nowhere. As for sex, well that's what TERB is for, and you save A LOT of time and money this way. So those who are whining about not getting women: just find some interesting things to do, pursue the hobbies with passion, and then you won't be missing anything!
 
Last edited:

frankcastle

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2003
17,886
236
63
I was not trying to be demeaning to any 5' guy. As someone suggested he could find a woman 5' or a little shorter interested in him. BUT 3-4 inches shorter would make her 4'7" How many women around are 4'7"? Ok I am no expert on this but I don't recall seeing any lady that short & I am thinking that is more midget height. I saw a program on t.v. about these midget social dating conventions. Many of the guys were 5' or a little shorter. The women in the 4'5" or so range. So just putting the suggestion out there as a very possible route. NOT to insult anyone.
even though i said plus or minus 3 inches we all know that in all likely hood we are talking about women between 5 ft and 5'3" due to what is out there so the midget solution is not part of my suggestion. dont use me as part of the justification for your mean comments.
 

frankcastle

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2003
17,886
236
63
I dunno. You dont choose what you're attracted to. Besides, most of the women who like(d) me were white - that in itself could mold my brain.
However, if you read "Fair Women, Dark Men: The Forgotten Roots of Color Prejudice", you'd see this preference was there even hundreds of years ago.
A *partial* reason, I suppose is whiter skin is how males identify fertility in females. For most races, the female is lighter skin colored than the male... but only during the reproductive years - due to hormonal changes and subcutaneous fat deposition. Females are all over the board on this, some preferring dark skin, some light - but males have a much clearer trend to prefer lighter skin tones.
evil you are an individual why keep lumping yourself into broad generalizations like wanting white women.

my attraction to them is quite simple...... i grew up in an all white place and jerked off to white girls as a teen so no surprise that is what i like. you mention being muslim and not dating well tbat is going to make meeting a white woman very difficult. you need to reevaluate what is important. a white woman is not likely to have muslim values.

flat out if your muslim values are most important you need a muslim woman.

if you want to date other than muslim you either need an openminded woman meaning dont restrict to tall whitr because that just makes it harder or you need to be more openminded about who to date.

you ve used theories and your own preferences and your own insecurities to paint yourself into such a small corner that it is no wonder you cant meet women. the good news is if you back off on evolutionary theories, open up your preferences and face your insecurities you have a good chance.

all the people talking about genes and evolution forget that those are changes on the scale of a population over long periods of time and you as the indicvidual have the power to adapt.

grow a fucking pair and stop with all this bullshit that is limiting your lives and justifying your misery.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,012
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
There was a story in the news recently about how Muslim women in Western countries have a hard time finding husbands. The reason turns out to be the tendencies of successful Muslim men to go back to their home country and import a bride selected in part via family connections there, rather than finding a local woman. That leaves the local women--who tend to be better educated and financially independent--struggling to find a partner who has education and social status similar to their own. It was a British news piece concerning Muslims in the UK but the trend may well be true here in Canada too.

So... a Muslim man in Toronto really ought not to have too much trouble finding a Muslim wife, if he wants one, assuming he cleans himself up and makes himself presentable / well dressed / stable job / friendly /etc.
 

evilbaga

Member
Jul 2, 2010
235
0
16
evil you are an individual why keep lumping yourself into broad generalizations like wanting white women.

my attraction to them is quite simple...... i grew up in an all white place and jerked off to white girls as a teen so no surprise that is what i like. you mention being muslim and not dating well tbat is going to make meeting a white woman very difficult. you need to reevaluate what is important. a white woman is not likely to have muslim values.

flat out if your muslim values are most important you need a muslim woman.

if you want to date other than muslim you either need an openminded woman meaning dont restrict to tall whitr because that just makes it harder or you need to be more openminded about who to date.

you ve used theories and your own preferences and your own insecurities to paint yourself into such a small corner that it is no wonder you cant meet women. the good news is if you back off on evolutionary theories, open up your preferences and face your insecurities you have a good chance.

all the people talking about genes and evolution forget that those are changes on the scale of a population over long periods of time and you as the indicvidual have the power to adapt.

grow a fucking pair and stop with all this bullshit that is limiting your lives and justifying your misery.
Whatever man.
 

Terminator2000

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
3,364
101
63
Problem is we only have your interpretation of getting ioi's. I have met many a desparate man who takes a woman's general friendlyness as ioi's. I have even myself had a few flirtatious women who I thought were expressing ioi's only to find out they were just overly flirtatious with everyone. DO NOT give this 5' guy false hope. Dude there is midget social conventions in the U.S. You are of the appropriate height to attend them & perhaps do well. NOT so in general Western society. You have one life to live, do not squander money on lotteries , nor precious time on women of the general population. Both are of equal odds of success.
partyman keeps mentioning 'subtle ioi's' that women give out. just wondering whats the list exactly of the ioi's a girl would be expressing that a guy has to pick up on thats so important that he has to get the message that she's interested in him?

i know ioi's are very important cause if a guy doesn't pick up on it and doesn't initiate things to the next level with the girl, she might feel rejected and feel that she was clearly giving him a signal and she might feel he didn't make a move because he wasn't interested and thus, leaving her feeling rejected when he clearly didn't reject her, just was too ignorant to get the signal to make a move on her.
 

prestokeys

Banned
Oct 1, 2011
3,578
0
36
i know ioi's are very important cause if a guy doesn't pick up on it and doesn't initiate things to the next level with the girl, she might feel rejected and feel that she was clearly giving him a signal and she might feel he didn't make a move because he wasn't interested and thus, leaving her feeling rejected when he clearly didn't reject her, just was too ignorant to get the signal to make a move on her.
Congratulations on writing the longest sentence ever in the history of TERB.
 

evilbaga

Member
Jul 2, 2010
235
0
16
Sheesh, that's a pretty sad story. At least the part on how he lets himself get taken advantage of and walked all over.

And not to split hairs but your pops would have been an "Omega" male. Beta's are the 'second-in-command' to alpha's, and they are definitely not weak squeamish people (or wolves). I'd rather piss off an alpha male/female than a beta male/female.

Police and security guards are mostly made up of people who behave beta.
There are two completely different meanings to the words Alpha/Beta/Omega.

In Game Culture - aka modern anything goes western culture:
An Alpha is one who women choose to sleep with.
A Beta is someone who struggles but still gets his needs met.
An Omega is screwed.

In scientific circles, these terms relate to how men relate to each other. Mostly from studies of chimps.
An alpha is recognized as respected and dominant by other males. A beta is an ally of the alpha. Basically Alphas and Betas share the females amongst themselves.
What is an Omega then? An Omega is someone shunned or extremely low on the Male hierarchy. Basically if an Omega tries to get a woman, the Alphas and Betas will give him a sound thrashing.

Side note on cooperation. In lower chimps and most other animals... you just have an Alpha - hording all the women to himself, and the rest of the males form a bachelor herd. Only in the higher primates does this change - and the Alpha is not necessarily the strongest or biggest, but has the skills to maintain the allegiance of a lot of betas so it is hard to depose him.

The question arises, how does an Omega remain in the gene pool? Simple - seduction. What I suspect is a part of what you guys call confidence. The Omega has no allegiance to the Alphas and Betas so he doesnt care if he sleeps with their 'wives'.
An Omega appeals to the females need to spread her genes far and wide. He does this by convincing her that he is good at getting other women to sleep with him. This excites the female because inherently the Alphas and Betas strategy is more limited as they are 'sharing' the women meaning they are in a cooperative activity so any one of their gene sets (and ergo the woman's genes) is limited in the amount it can reproduce. For an Omega, not involved in such cooperative activity, the potential is unlimited.

One thing you'd notice of the Alpha/Beta strategy is control of the females reproductive capacity. You see this in ancient cultures a lot...

Matt Ridley's Red Queen said:
In the ancient empire of the Incas, sex was a heavily regulate industry: The sun-king Atahualpa kept fifteen hundred women each of many "houses of virgins" throughout his kingdom. The were selected for their beauty and were rarely chosen after the age of eight—to ensure their virginity. But they did not all remain virgins for long: They were the emperor's concubines: Beneath him each rank of society afforded a h-arem of a particular legal size Great lords had h-arems of more than seven hundred women.
"Principal persons" were allowed fifty women; leaders of vassal nation thirty; heads of provinces of 1 00,000 people, twenty; leaders of I,000 people, fifteen; administrators of 500 people, twelve; governors of 100 people, eight; petty chiefs over 50 men, seven; chief of 10 men, five; chiefs of 5 men, three. That left precious few for the average male Indian whose enforced near-celibacy must have driven him to desperate acts, a fact attested to by the severity of the penalties that followed any cuckolding of his seniors. If a man violated one of Atahualpa 's women, he, his wife, his children, his relatives, his servants, his fellow villagers, and all his lamas would be put to death, the village would be destroyed, and the site strewn with stones.
Matt Ridley's Red Queen said:
The six independent "civilizations"of early history—Baby-on, Egypt, India, China, Aztec Mexico, and Inca Peru—were emarkable less for their civility than for their concentration of power. They were all ruled by men, one man at a time, whose power was arbitrary and absolute. These men were despots, meaning they would kill their subjects without fear of retribution. Without exception, that vast accumulation of power was always translated into prodigious sexual productivity. The Babylonian king Hammurabi had thousands of slave "wives" at his command. The Egyptian
pharaoh Akhenaten procured 317 concubines and "droves"of con-orts. The Aztec ruler Montezuma enjoyed 4,000 concubines. The Indian emperor Udayama preserved sixteen thousand consorts in apartments ringed by fire and guarded by eunuchs: The Chinese emperor Fei-ti had ten thousand women in his h-arem. The Inca Atahualpa, as we have seen, kept virgins on tap throughout the
kingdom:
Not only did these six emperors, each typical of his predecessors and successors, have similarly large h-arems, but they employed similar techniques to fill and guard them. They recruited young (usually prepubertal) women, kept them in highly defensible
and escape-proof forts, guarded them with eunuchs, pampered them, and expected them to breed the emperor's children. Measures to enhance the fertility of the h-arems were common. Wet nurses, who allow women to resume ovulation by cutting short their breast-feeding periods, date from at least the code of Hammurabi in the eighteenth century B:C.; they were sung about in Sumerian lullabies.
Note the point: Men are choosing the h-arems.

Now modern western culture is different. Women have all the power in regards to their sexuality - soft h-arems still form - but women are the ones choosing the h-arem to belong in. (And yes, not all of them - many are in LTRs and serially and/or completely monogamous by their own choice etc). This is a diametrically opposite situation.

The question of course arises: How do women choose?
Well basically thats what this whole thread is about. With lots of different opinions.

I dont have the answer, however to see how much things have changed...
Consider the commander of the Battle of the Phillippine Sea (also known as the Great Mariana's Turkey shoot). He wrote letters to his future wife. Then he met her and married her after the war (sorry cannot find a link, I read this long ago). Could someone meet his wife that way today?
And if not, is there not a differential gene selection for such types of men? And perhaps for Betas and Alphas in the scientific sense, over Omegas?


Edit:
Why is h-arem an edited word? :confused:
 
Toronto Escorts