Making the Effort

[Michael Palaeologus]

In her latest blog entry CWALD observed

"Anyone who knows me, knows I've been around the block a few times, so have lots to say about men and sex. But something that has been bothering me a lot recently is the good in bed = broke and well flushed = crap in bed phenomenon. Why is it that most guys who are amazing in bed are usually broke, and the ones who are doing well in life are usually a lousy lay?"

This kind of chimes with a piece I heard recently on the radio which said that men who were married had a lower testosterone count than otherwise similar single men and that men with a number of wives (at the same time) had an even lower levels of testoserone. This was put down to a primordial need to find a mate and thus testosterone is produced to stimulate mating behaviour, getting pissed on a Saturday night, having a fight and throwing up in the gutter for instance. If that need is satisfied and man has his mate the requirement for testosterone reduces and if there are a number of mates, it is reduced even more.

Taking CWALD's point, striving for life success is part of broader mating behaviour, if a man has money and posessions then he does not need to make that much of an effort; if he does not have those obvious signals of success he needs to make more of an effort.

So, ladies and gentlemen but not children, what say you?

[PeckhamRose]

I say there's another issue. What about those of us - men AND women - who have no desire to have children and indeed have none - but how does that affect the mating needs / instincts when we never want kids. Still want sex tho. I remember talking to a mate years ago who said he wanted a family, and when we boiled him down to the basics, he admitted he never liked kids and that he was saying those things to please his bullying Dad, and actually marriage appealed only because it was assumed he would get regular sex. Instincts have a lot to answer for!

I look forward to reading folks' thoughts on the original posting.

[mockney piers]

Biological imperatives obviously influence overall patterns of behaviour, but I'm not convinced by its application at the micro rather than the macro level. I think the drinking/fighting is because lots of people like drinking, many people like the adrenaline rush of a fight (or they're just ignorant bullies/thugs frankly) and some like to combine the two.

Mating behaviour? Meh.

As regards Amanda's penchant for sex with the poor, it's obviously just a subconscious manifestation of her marxist ideals, ensuring that there is a fair redistribution of all the benefits of social living; not just the material wealth created by the proletariat.

[*Bob*]

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In her latest blog entry CWALD observed..

Why is it that

> most guys who are amazing in bed are usually

> broke, and the ones who are doing well in life are

> usually a lousy lay?"

Similarly, why are rich girls always better (any men reading, change 'better' to 'filthier') in the sack than poor girls?

The answer is.. they aren't. It's just (another) one of those things that people say.

[Michael Palaeologus]

Its the posh accent.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Had a convo with CWALD yesterday and the same topic .. er... came up

Needless to say I disagree on the premise - but CWALD also extends it to people she finds interesting (not just settled/well-off)

Nothing to do with CWALD at all but I remember seeing a documentary in the early 90s where this 40 something woman berated the men she "tried" and why were they all lousy. Then they followed her to some well nasty club on the edge of the village full of desperate married people looking to cop off. She was asked if this was the sort of place she goes to and she looked at the camera and said "no, it's the place I always go to"

Cause/effect???

[mockney piers]

"but CWALD also extends it to people she finds interesting (not just settled/well-off)"

Well don't like to talk about someone I like alot in the third person, but I've seen this in so many of my old girl-friends in the past, stuck in an exitless Hangar Lane Gyratory of varyingly pathetic, bad, or often abusive relationships.

It's a self-image thing. I hate to sound like an 2-bit American chat show host, but get some respect for oneself and happiness can be found with someone who respects err .. one.

[*Bob*]

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Its the posh accent.

Let's call it 'Lady Chatterley Syndrome'.. a novel which cunningly plays up to myths in sexual stereotyping on both sides of the social / financial divide.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I can do a posh accent!

[downsouth]

I'm in agreement with MP, those with low self-esteem do tend to gravitate to the 'wrong sorts'. Also, where people don't find themselves being satisfied between the sheets they sometimes have to examine whether they are doing enough to keep the other party engaged.

[Brendan]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Similarly, why are rich girls always better (any

> men reading, change 'better' to 'filthier') in the

> sack than poor girls?

Posh girls aren?t necessarily better in the sack but they are in general easier to get into the sack.

I hold my hands up and say that I do have an opinion on this either way. It is just an observation.

Anyway shame on you all for taking the usually decent and topical subject matter of this forum for a walk through the gutter.

[snorky]

Im not in a positon to comment, as the minimum sample size required for an objective answer is too large

[mockney piers]

"Im not in a positon to comment"

Missionary perchance? ;-P

[Ant]

I'm not in a position to go out and do more research on this one. Ho hum...

[citizenED]

not boasting like, but I'm something special in the sack...

[mockney piers]

You're clearly fertile in the sack anyway. Congrats again btw!!

[citizenED]

ahem, thanks (blushes)

[Jah Lush]

You stud muffin you.

[Brendan]

What? Do muffins come in sacks? :-S

[Domitianus]

A point well made is the sample size. Despite CWALD's claims to slapper-dom (she implied it, not me!), I am still not convinced that her sample size would necessarily be large enough to have statistical validity. Perhaps her experience is a mere anomaly?

An equally interesting point relates to nationality. So far in my shagging career I have experienced the delights of English, Irish, Scottish, French, Dutch, Czech and Italian fillies and am undecided as to which nationality is best. A friend of mine with more extensive experience is convinced that English women are lousy lays and that Eastern Europeans are best. Any comments?

[*Bob*]

'fillies'?!

Good god.

[downsouth]

Out of interest, what's the difference between fillies and Mares?

[Domitianus]

downsouth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Out of interest, what's the difference between

> fillies and Mares?

Six pints - chuckle chuckle!

[citizenED]

is that prior or post?

[Domitianus]

Prior of course, old boy. Afterwards one has a snifter of Glenmorangie and sends the wench back to polishing the furniture - what ho!