Who Says You Cant Buy Love?

Veeresh #104 [``...Who says you can`t buy love...``]

As I said in my post #15, ``Money can`t buy me love`` was what the Beetles said. However, they only mentioned buy but said nothing of not being able to rent love, and lots of it too.

...SR

Who says you can`t buy love?

Actually, I think a couple of the Beatles also said so.

So there.

Guys..just ignore my last post..
Was written at the spur of a moment. Of course I know ..not all Pakistani muslims think of hindu girls like that...

re: #83

...you need to go get a lap dance...

Ab bhi dilkush hai tera husn magar kiya keejeyay..

Aur bhi dukh hain zamaanay maen mohabbat kay siwa...


Faiz

I wonder if some Hindu woman had written an article like this and thus participated in the kind of some very open, if not steamy `orgamistic` responses it had..what would have Paki Muslims said about her....
Made some harsh judgement probably that ...yessss..hindu women are like that..as they show in the movies, like the types of ali_1 did...in the past..
Or somebody wrote earlier..that Hindu women are meant for enjoyment and flirtation.
So, it is good we don`t see any hindu women participating in such hot discussions.lest they are...

saminasha #97 i suppose as a kenyan he should know - a number of wives/girlfriends is considered the sign of a successful man among many africans, just as gunmen are the sign of a successful maulvi or landlord in pakistan.
when all is said and done, though, i think the dominant ``sexual institution`` in virtually every culture past and present has been something I called ``monocheatogamy`` below (although, in deference to hamidm`s offense at the use of the word ``cheat`` we can also call it ``monophilandrogamy``). This is my personal, scientific observation undertaken across countries, in offices, colleges, everywhere.

It is human nature to wonder about how green the grass is on the other side. Well if it will make things any better - both parties in a relationship should be allowed a timeout and no questions asked policy per year or per lifetime whatever to check things out and get them back in perspective. Needs a lot of courage though.

Harimau,

Why insult chimps? :)

Tahmed,
A Kenyan friend brought up the distinction between serial monogamy and having more than one partner. I think his point was that there is not much difference besides a spatial one...

saminashah

you ask, ``ultimately how would one sort out more than one relationship ``..... i don`t have the foggiest idea - it could be rather complicated and very few people manage to do it well........but what most men dream of are primarily sexual encounters (not relationships) outside of the sacred institution of marriage which is the primary relationship ``based on commitment, childbearing, finances, etc.``......... of course these ``mindless`` encounters sometimes get out of hand and cause a lot of grief for all parties involved..........and you would be surprised at how weak this learned behaviour of monogamy really is and how many men succumb to their ``nature`` ........ like mrs hamidm says ``admi ki zaat ka koi ehtebar nahin``............

ali87 #92 have you been married the traditional way, i.e. with a woman who is tired after a long day of ceremony, is apprehensive of how the she will be treated, has never before exposed her body to any man? if yes, and your spouse was nevertheless thrilled by your performance the first night, then either you are the world`s greatest lover, or your wife is the world`s bravest woman. if no, then you dont know what you are talking about.

saminasha #87 ``There is the concept of ``sequential/serial monogamy`` which translates to having one relationship after another. Is it that different from polygamy? ``

yes indeed. the former implies you are not playing off one individual against the other, not causing jealousies or heartbreaks. although, seeing a friend going through a divorce nowadays (his pakistan born wife is ringing his bell financially and otherwise in as cool and calculating a manner as any mafia hit man) i am not sure that serial monogamy is a bed of roses either.

SR:
I do not totally disagree with your post but we both are talking two different things. Human biology, microbiology, biochemistry is downright animal with same chemistry. Human understanding of this chemical basis has led to many innovations, techniques and technologies to meet the animal instincts. One of the understanding is that human biology does not care how its goals are achieved. It is thermodynamic principle with goal or end result oriented. Just as human biology does not care if food was stolen from the shelf or bought, eaten with hands or fork and knife, similarly in sex, the target is to maximize reproductivity chances but male anatomy deals with it through large number of sperms and orgasm. Beyond that male biology does not care if women gets pregnant, or sperms are not delivered into the proper chamber. The chemistry outside the individual human body is largely outside individual`s animal instict control.

Purely scientifically speaking, each male is a potential father of thousands of offsprings in his lifetime but it does not happen because nature also has its own set of checks and balances. Therefore male is tuned to have sex without reproduction on his mind all the time. It also means that maximum frequency of intercourse is not a requirement for reproduction or pleasure of sex at individual level.

This has led to much more innovations in Sex than restricting it to intercourse alone. The sex industry is much bigger than intecourse industry, if you take out marriage partnering which is more than intercourse or sex alone. The innovations lead to acquired characters or what you called nurture in your post.

My post was not about self-aggrendizement but about what else people do sexually other than plain old intercourse. All this is due to longer memory and acceptance of acquired characters much faster to work in conjunction with and for the goals of animal instincts of human.

More intercourses in a society (collectively) mean more pregnancies, in general, but societies having more ``sex`` are actually having less babies (perhaps less frequent intercourse too) although reasons are more complex and beyond the scope of this discussion.

[The tacit assumption you seem to make is that we humans have so far transcended our animal nature that we are capable of operating above and beyond our biological make up. ]

Not at all. I have no delusions in the presence of scientifc basis, be it biology, chemistry, physics or astronomy. I meant to say this: Reaching from point A to B for the sake of our insticts does not require to follow the same path always. In thermodynamics, A and B are important than path to get to B. It is natural way in chemistry too. Each reaction, chemical or biological follows a path, which may look like a potential energy curve but in three dimentions, it a following a potential surface with an area with same reaction taking place left and right of main path.

Ref Saminasha #88

[SR,
Any comments on our nearest kin, chimps? :) ]

As far as I know, George W. Bush is monogamous.

You may want to visit www.smirkingchimps.com

SR #84
>>This distinction you draw between sex on the one hand and intercourse on the other, <<

err....how does that work.
Something new to learn every day.

SR #84
>>This distinction you draw between sex on the one hand and intercourse on the other, <<

err....forget the distinction, tell us how does that work?
Something new to learn every day.