Do Men Have Honor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe this topi? belongs elsewhere, but I'm going to start it here. I am a man. I am frankly confused and frustrated by the Hollywood sex scandals. I don't understand them. What are these men thinking! Have they no honor? I would never, even in the worst state of mind, think of showing my genitals to anyone, much less a professional colleague. Have I and am I attracted to women in my workplaces? Of course. I'm a man. I'm not dead. But I have discipline, self control and honor.

If someone can explain it to me, please do. I just can't wrap my mind around it.

I do believe there are plenty of men who could share stories about women that came on to them, and more, in order to further their career. I would imagine in Hollywood that kind of story would easily be found on both sides of the gender aisle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do Men Have Honor?

Speak for yourself, moron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Male sperm declines rapidly with age, which is why we ladies cant help chasing young, hot, ripped pieces of ass. Sorry boys- just how it is!

Men age like fine wine, women age like milk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Male sperm declines rapidly with age, which is why we ladies cant help chasing young, hot, ripped pieces of ass. Sorry boys- just how it is!

Men age like fine wine, women age like milk.

I have never pushed myself on a woman.

I also have never had sex in 2 years.

while i don't want my daughter to go thru violence, I think most women want to have it both ways, select when they want sex, but yet have men pursue them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In Mother Nature, there is no free lunch. Males (not just the human kind) are expected to be powerful, confident, successful, desirable, change-makers with lots of children from young, fertile women, to ensure their DNA survives. And they have evolved to do just that.

Actually when you look at patterns of mating before the modern era the vast majority of men did not reproduce. Women have always been the choosers and chosen the best, most attractive and strong partners.

You are right, but perhaps not in the way you think you are.

Before the "modern era," you had a small number of powerful men who did most of the reproducing while the majority of men were expendable, and one notch above the beasts of the fields. This is why men evolved to seek power, and in some cases rape. Women are never at top, but the limit on how many children a woman can bear has always made them less expendable, and so women always have more status than poor men, but less than powerful men. In life, men are either winners or losers. For women, there's a big gray area, so there is less of an incentive to be ruthlessly ambitious and competitive. Historically, men have been forced to play a crueler game than women in order to have children and successfully provide for them.

As a wildlife biologist, former primatologist, with a dual BS in biology and anthropology, claims like this make me cringe.

Leave the science to the scientists, please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In Mother Nature, there is no free lunch. Males (not just the human kind) are expected to be powerful, confident, successful, desirable, change-makers with lots of children from young, fertile women, to ensure their DNA survives. And they have evolved to do just that.

Actually when you look at patterns of mating before the modern era the vast majority of men did not reproduce. Women have always been the choosers and chosen the best, most attractive and strong partners.

You are right, but perhaps not in the way you think you are.

Before the "modern era," you had a small number of powerful men who did most of the reproducing while the majority of men were expendable, and one notch above the beasts of the fields. This is why men evolved to seek power, and in some cases rape. Women are never at top, but the limit on how many children a woman can bear has always made them less expendable, and so women always have more status than poor men, but less than powerful men. In life, men are either winners or losers. For women, there's a big gray area, so there is less of an incentive to be ruthlessly ambitious and competitive. Historically, men have been forced to play a crueler game than women in order to have children and successfully provide for them.

As a wildlife biologist, former primatologist, with a dual BS in biology and anthropology, claims like this make me cringe.

Leave the science to the scientists, please.

hmm, so all men had equal access to women in pre BC years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In Mother Nature, there is no free lunch. Males (not just the human kind) are expected to be powerful, confident, successful, desirable, change-makers with lots of children from young, fertile women, to ensure their DNA survives. And they have evolved to do just that.

Actually when you look at patterns of mating before the modern era the vast majority of men did not reproduce. Women have always been the choosers and chosen the best, most attractive and strong partners.

You are right, but perhaps not in the way you think you are.

Before the "modern era," you had a small number of powerful men who did most of the reproducing while the majority of men were expendable, and one notch above the beasts of the fields. This is why men evolved to seek power, and in some cases rape. Women are never at top, but the limit on how many children a woman can bear has always made them less expendable, and so women always have more status than poor men, but less than powerful men. In life, men are either winners or losers. For women, there's a big gray area, so there is less of an incentive to be ruthlessly ambitious and competitive. Historically, men have been forced to play a crueler game than women in order to have children and successfully provide for them.

As a wildlife biologist, former primatologist, with a dual BS in biology and anthropology, claims like this make me cringe.

Leave the science to the scientists, please.

hmm, so all men had equal access to women in pre BC years?

It's called the club.

Bam! Drag woman by hair to your cave and mate.

I'm listening to the wildlife biologist over you. You need to come up with some proper citations to back up your theory. Men are physically much stronger than women and have always been. That's why stories like the rape of the Sabine women abound in ancient history and literature. The idea that there were huge marauding clans of men willingly going away when women said piss off is laughable. Honey, if you'd tried that to the primitive and ancient men you probably wouldn't last more than a few hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In Mother Nature, there is no free lunch. Males (not just the human kind) are expected to be powerful, confident, successful, desirable, change-makers with lots of children from young, fertile women, to ensure their DNA survives. And they have evolved to do just that.

Actually when you look at patterns of mating before the modern era the vast majority of men did not reproduce. Women have always been the choosers and chosen the best, most attractive and strong partners.

You are right, but perhaps not in the way you think you are.

Before the "modern era," you had a small number of powerful men who did most of the reproducing while the majority of men were expendable, and one notch above the beasts of the fields. This is why men evolved to seek power, and in some cases rape. Women are never at top, but the limit on how many children a woman can bear has always made them less expendable, and so women always have more status than poor men, but less than powerful men. In life, men are either winners or losers. For women, there's a big gray area, so there is less of an incentive to be ruthlessly ambitious and competitive. Historically, men have been forced to play a crueler game than women in order to have children and successfully provide for them.

As a wildlife biologist, former primatologist, with a dual BS in biology and anthropology, claims like this make me cringe.

Leave the science to the scientists, please.

hmm, so all men had equal access to women in pre BC years?

It's called the club.

Bam! Drag woman by hair to your cave and mate.

I'm listening to the wildlife biologist over you. You need to come up with some proper citations to back up your theory. Men are physically much stronger than women and have always been. That's why stories like the rape of the Sabine women abound in ancient history and literature. The idea that there were huge marauding clans of men willingly going away when women said piss off is laughable. Honey, if you'd tried that to the primitive and ancient men you probably wouldn't last more than a few hours.

The "rape" of the Sabine women, wasn't rape in the modern sense. It was more of a seduction.

Yes, men are bigger and stronger, but this likely evolved due to sexual selection and competition with other men, as opposed to "it makes it easier to rape." Over time, women have basically "bred" men to be tall and have big shoulders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In Mother Nature, there is no free lunch. Males (not just the human kind) are expected to be powerful, confident, successful, desirable, change-makers with lots of children from young, fertile women, to ensure their DNA survives. And they have evolved to do just that.

Actually when you look at patterns of mating before the modern era the vast majority of men did not reproduce. Women have always been the choosers and chosen the best, most attractive and strong partners.

You are right, but perhaps not in the way you think you are.

Before the "modern era," you had a small number of powerful men who did most of the reproducing while the majority of men were expendable, and one notch above the beasts of the fields. This is why men evolved to seek power, and in some cases rape. Women are never at top, but the limit on how many children a woman can bear has always made them less expendable, and so women always have more status than poor men, but less than powerful men. In life, men are either winners or losers. For women, there's a big gray area, so there is less of an incentive to be ruthlessly ambitious and competitive. Historically, men have been forced to play a crueler game than women in order to have children and successfully provide for them.

As a wildlife biologist, former primatologist, with a dual BS in biology and anthropology, claims like this make me cringe.

Leave the science to the scientists, please.

hmm, so all men had equal access to women in pre BC years?

It's called the club.

Bam! Drag woman by hair to your cave and mate.

I'm listening to the wildlife biologist over you. You need to come up with some proper citations to back up your theory. Men are physically much stronger than women and have always been. That's why stories like the rape of the Sabine women abound in ancient history and literature. The idea that there were huge marauding clans of men willingly going away when women said piss off is laughable. Honey, if you'd tried that to the primitive and ancient men you probably wouldn't last more than a few hours.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In Mother Nature, there is no free lunch. Males (not just the human kind) are expected to be powerful, confident, successful, desirable, change-makers with lots of children from young, fertile women, to ensure their DNA survives. And they have evolved to do just that.

Actually when you look at patterns of mating before the modern era the vast majority of men did not reproduce. Women have always been the choosers and chosen the best, most attractive and strong partners.

You are right, but perhaps not in the way you think you are.

Before the "modern era," you had a small number of powerful men who did most of the reproducing while the majority of men were expendable, and one notch above the beasts of the fields. This is why men evolved to seek power, and in some cases rape. Women are never at top, but the limit on how many children a woman can bear has always made them less expendable, and so women always have more status than poor men, but less than powerful men. In life, men are either winners or losers. For women, there's a big gray area, so there is less of an incentive to be ruthlessly ambitious and competitive. Historically, men have been forced to play a crueler game than women in order to have children and successfully provide for them.

As a wildlife biologist, former primatologist, with a dual BS in biology and anthropology, claims like this make me cringe.

Leave the science to the scientists, please.

hmm, so all men had equal access to women in pre BC years?

It's called the club.

Bam! Drag woman by hair to your cave and mate.

I'm listening to the wildlife biologist over you. You need to come up with some proper citations to back up your theory. Men are physically much stronger than women and have always been. That's why stories like the rape of the Sabine women abound in ancient history and literature. The idea that there were huge marauding clans of men willingly going away when women said piss off is laughable. Honey, if you'd tried that to the primitive and ancient men you probably wouldn't last more than a few hours.

The "rape" of the Sabine women, wasn't rape in the modern sense. It was more of a seduction. Also, it is a legend, not a literal historical event (admittedly, you did say "story").

Yes, men are bigger and stronger, but this likely evolved due to sexual selection and competition with other men, as opposed to "being strong makes it easier to rape people." Over time, women have basically "bred" men to be tall and have big shoulders. Women have shaped male physiology as much as men have shaped women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe this topi? belongs elsewhere, but I'm going to start it here. I am a man. I am frankly confused and frustrated by the Hollywood sex scandals. I don't understand them. What are these men thinking! Have they no honor? I would never, even in the worst state of mind, think of showing my genitals to anyone, much less a professional colleague. Have I and am I attracted to women in my workplaces? Of course. I'm a man. I'm not dead. But I have discipline, self control and honor.

If someone can explain it to me, please do. I just can't wrap my mind around it.

I do believe there are plenty of men who could share stories about women that came on to them, and more, in order to further their career. I would imagine in Hollywood that kind of story would easily be found on both sides of the gender aisle.

No doubt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Male sperm declines rapidly with age, which is why we ladies cant help chasing young, hot, ripped pieces of ass. Sorry boys- just how it is!

Men age like fine wine, women age like milk.

I have never pushed myself on a woman.

I also have never had sex in 2 years.

while i don't want my daughter to go thru violence, I think most women want to have it both ways, select when they want sex, but yet have men pursue them.

I understand what you are saying, but you're wasting your time.

Women just don't get the "it's hard having to always be the pursuer and put yourself out there and be rejected." It's not something that they can really empathize with because they don't have to deal with it, and in their view, men are "privileged" and that's that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In Mother Nature, there is no free lunch. Males (not just the human kind) are expected to be powerful, confident, successful, desirable, change-makers with lots of children from young, fertile women, to ensure their DNA survives. And they have evolved to do just that.

Actually when you look at patterns of mating before the modern era the vast majority of men did not reproduce. Women have always been the choosers and chosen the best, most attractive and strong partners.

You are right, but perhaps not in the way you think you are.

Before the "modern era," you had a small number of powerful men who did most of the reproducing while the majority of men were expendable, and one notch above the beasts of the fields. This is why men evolved to seek power, and in some cases rape. Women are never at top, but the limit on how many children a woman can bear has always made them less expendable, and so women always have more status than poor men, but less than powerful men. In life, men are either winners or losers. For women, there's a big gray area, so there is less of an incentive to be ruthlessly ambitious and competitive. Historically, men have been forced to play a crueler game than women in order to have children and successfully provide for them.

As a wildlife biologist, former primatologist, with a dual BS in biology and anthropology, claims like this make me cringe.

Leave the science to the scientists, please.

hmm, so all men had equal access to women in pre BC years?

It's called the club.

Bam! Drag woman by hair to your cave and mate.

I'm listening to the wildlife biologist over you. You need to come up with some proper citations to back up your theory. Men are physically much stronger than women and have always been. That's why stories like the rape of the Sabine women abound in ancient history and literature. The idea that there were huge marauding clans of men willingly going away when women said piss off is laughable. Honey, if you'd tried that to the primitive and ancient men you probably wouldn't last more than a few hours.

The "rape" of the Sabine women, wasn't rape in the modern sense. It was more of a seduction.

Yes, men are bigger and stronger, but this likely evolved due to sexual selection and competition with other men, as opposed to "it makes it easier to rape." Over time, women have basically "bred" men to be tall and have big shoulders.

+10000

[Anonymous]

I work in an office that is majority women, maybe 65-70% and if I said the stuff they say to me regarding my appearance I would be fired. They're not super over the top comments in general but enough where if roles were reversed it would be sexual harassment. I try to keep my office door closed and avoid talking with women as much as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I work in an office that is majority women, maybe 65-70% and if I said the stuff they say to me regarding my appearance I would be fired. They're not super over the top comments in general but enough where if roles were reversed it would be sexual harassment. I try to keep my office door closed and avoid talking with women as much as possible.

Sure, Jan.

[Anonymous]

The concept of personal honor isn’t taught to children in the West anymore. It’s derided as an outdated and non-Western cultural artifact.