American Sugar Daddy Convention

Off Topic
142

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
In fact, I doubt that you can discern “quality” from “non-quality” when it comes to women.

So what you would or would not do, lets see, shall we?

[/quote]

I’d be curious to hear how different guys describe quality.
[/quote]

Quality is saving the quick judgment and looking deeper into what a man is really about.

Quality is on the downfall.

Entitled Bitch is on the rise.[/quote]

I have questions on this “X”.
Women do this “look deeper” stuff to death.
[/quote]

Nah, they do the “I think I know him based on my preconceived notions” thing to death. That is why so many get taken for a ride by any guy who knows how to play by those rules…ie. dress the part and act the part of someone well off.

I truly think most women want to live in a real life soap opera…so they see things in terms of a shocking season finale. That’s not looking deeper. If they did that, the guy selling crack on their couch wouldn’t be on his 3rd illegit kid with someone else.

That’s wanting fantasy in place of reality.[/quote]

Truth.

143

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
In fact, I doubt that you can discern “quality” from “non-quality” when it comes to women.

So what you would or would not do, lets see, shall we?

[/quote]

I’d be curious to hear how different guys describe quality.
[/quote]

Quality is saving the quick judgment and looking deeper into what a man is really about.

Quality is on the downfall.

Entitled Bitch is on the rise.[/quote]

I have questions on this “X”.
Women do this “look deeper” stuff to death.
[/quote]

Nah, they do the “I think I know him based on my preconceived notions” thing to death. That is why so many get taken for a ride by any guy who knows how to play by those rules…ie. dress the part and act the part of someone well off.

I truly think most women want to live in a real life soap opera…so they see things in terms of a shocking season finale. That’s not looking deeper. If they did that, the guy selling crack on their couch wouldn’t be on his 3rd illegit kid with someone else.

That’s wanting fantasy in place of reality.[/quote]

Truth.[/quote]

x2

Why are all those retarded real housewives of wherever shows so popular, it’s the drama. Chicks crave that shit like crack for some reason.

144

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
In fact, I doubt that you can discern “quality” from “non-quality” when it comes to women.

So what you would or would not do, lets see, shall we?

[/quote]

I’d be curious to hear how different guys describe quality.
[/quote]

Quality is saving the quick judgment and looking deeper into what a man is really about.

Quality is on the downfall.

Entitled Bitch is on the rise.[/quote]

I have questions on this “X”.
Women do this “look deeper” stuff to death.
[/quote]

Nah, they do the “I think I know him based on my preconceived notions” thing to death. That is why so many get taken for a ride by any guy who knows how to play by those rules…ie. dress the part and act the part of someone well off.

I truly think most women want to live in a real life soap opera…so they see things in terms of a shocking season finale. That’s not looking deeper. If they did that, the guy selling crack on their couch wouldn’t be on his 3rd illegit kid with someone else.

That’s wanting fantasy in place of reality.[/quote]

Truth.[/quote]

x2

Why are all those retarded real housewives of wherever shows so popular, it’s the drama. Chicks crave that shit like crack for some reason.
[/quote]

It will drive you crazy living in a mansion by yourself all day and maybe weeks without human contact. When all you have is TV keeping you company then fantasy takes over. Then, you will search out drama in real life, or you will create it.

145

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
In fact, I doubt that you can discern “quality” from “non-quality” when it comes to women.

So what you would or would not do, lets see, shall we?

[/quote]

I’d be curious to hear how different guys describe quality.
[/quote]

Quality is saving the quick judgment and looking deeper into what a man is really about.

Quality is on the downfall.

Entitled Bitch is on the rise.[/quote]

I have questions on this “X”.
Women do this “look deeper” stuff to death.
[/quote]

Nah, they do the “I think I know him based on my preconceived notions” thing to death. That is why so many get taken for a ride by any guy who knows how to play by those rules…ie. dress the part and act the part of someone well off.

I truly think most women want to live in a real life soap opera…so they see things in terms of a shocking season finale. That’s not looking deeper. If they did that, the guy selling crack on their couch wouldn’t be on his 3rd illegit kid with someone else.

That’s wanting fantasy in place of reality.[/quote]

Truth.[/quote]

X3 well said agian

146

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]theBeth wrote:

After a couple decades of observation and experience, I am not jaded but I do wonder if humans are really programmed to be monogamous - Or is that a construct of religion and society that has turned into a preprogrammed expectation.

I’d recommend John Demartini’s books, especially “The Breakthrough Experience” and “The Heart of Love”. Tough reading, but life altering.[/quote]

Just to respond to that one quickly.

No, we are not monogamous.

Women prefer rotating polyandry, men polygamy when they can get it.

However, civilization is about either diverting or downright repressing insincts and I start to wonder whether those religions were not so much prudish and anti sex but more along the lines of realistic when it comes to human nature and pro civilization. [/quote]

On the other hand, it seems that periods of greatest scientific and cultural progress also seem to be periods where sexual morality was a lot more lax.

147

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]theBeth wrote:

After a couple decades of observation and experience, I am not jaded but I do wonder if humans are really programmed to be monogamous - Or is that a construct of religion and society that has turned into a preprogrammed expectation.

I’d recommend John Demartini’s books, especially “The Breakthrough Experience” and “The Heart of Love”. Tough reading, but life altering.[/quote]

Just to respond to that one quickly.

No, we are not monogamous.

Women prefer rotating polyandry, men polygamy when they can get it.

However, civilization is about either diverting or downright repressing insincts and I start to wonder whether those religions were not so much prudish and anti sex but more along the lines of realistic when it comes to human nature and pro civilization. [/quote]

On the other hand, it seems that periods of greatest scientific and cultural progress also seem to be periods where sexual morality was a lot more lax.[/quote]

Yup. Not a lot of culture or science going on during the Victorian Era.

148

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]theBeth wrote:

After a couple decades of observation and experience, I am not jaded but I do wonder if humans are really programmed to be monogamous - Or is that a construct of religion and society that has turned into a preprogrammed expectation.

I’d recommend John Demartini’s books, especially “The Breakthrough Experience” and “The Heart of Love”. Tough reading, but life altering.[/quote]

Just to respond to that one quickly.

No, we are not monogamous.

Women prefer rotating polyandry, men polygamy when they can get it.

However, civilization is about either diverting or downright repressing insincts and I start to wonder whether those religions were not so much prudish and anti sex but more along the lines of realistic when it comes to human nature and pro civilization. [/quote]

On the other hand, it seems that periods of greatest scientific and cultural progress also seem to be periods where sexual morality was a lot more lax.[/quote]

Yup. Not a lot of culture or science going on during the Victorian Era.[/quote]

You lost me… I really don’t know a thing about the Victorian Era.

149

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]theBeth wrote:

After a couple decades of observation and experience, I am not jaded but I do wonder if humans are really programmed to be monogamous - Or is that a construct of religion and society that has turned into a preprogrammed expectation.

I’d recommend John Demartini’s books, especially “The Breakthrough Experience” and “The Heart of Love”. Tough reading, but life altering.[/quote]

Just to respond to that one quickly.

No, we are not monogamous.

Women prefer rotating polyandry, men polygamy when they can get it.

However, civilization is about either diverting or downright repressing insincts and I start to wonder whether those religions were not so much prudish and anti sex but more along the lines of realistic when it comes to human nature and pro civilization. [/quote]

On the other hand, it seems that periods of greatest scientific and cultural progress also seem to be periods where sexual morality was a lot more lax.[/quote]

Yup. Not a lot of culture or science going on during the Victorian Era.[/quote]

You lost me… I really don’t know a thing about the Victorian Era.[/quote]

Its the era in which fucking machines were invented, and women went to their doctors to orgasm.

150

[quote]theBeth wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]theBeth wrote:

After a couple decades of observation and experience, I am not jaded but I do wonder if humans are really programmed to be monogamous - Or is that a construct of religion and society that has turned into a preprogrammed expectation.

I’d recommend John Demartini’s books, especially “The Breakthrough Experience” and “The Heart of Love”. Tough reading, but life altering.[/quote]

Just to respond to that one quickly.

No, we are not monogamous.

Women prefer rotating polyandry, men polygamy when they can get it.

However, civilization is about either diverting or downright repressing insincts and I start to wonder whether those religions were not so much prudish and anti sex but more along the lines of realistic when it comes to human nature and pro civilization. [/quote]

On the other hand, it seems that periods of greatest scientific and cultural progress also seem to be periods where sexual morality was a lot more lax.[/quote]

Yup. Not a lot of culture or science going on during the Victorian Era.[/quote]

You lost me… I really don’t know a thing about the Victorian Era.[/quote]

Its the era in which fucking machines were invented, and women went to their doctors to orgasm. [/quote]

They also weren’t all that “sexually moral”.

Wearing a wig and stockings brought out every pale skinned sex freak in the country.

151

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]theBeth wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]theBeth wrote:

After a couple decades of observation and experience, I am not jaded but I do wonder if humans are really programmed to be monogamous - Or is that a construct of religion and society that has turned into a preprogrammed expectation.

I’d recommend John Demartini’s books, especially “The Breakthrough Experience” and “The Heart of Love”. Tough reading, but life altering.[/quote]

Just to respond to that one quickly.

No, we are not monogamous.

Women prefer rotating polyandry, men polygamy when they can get it.

However, civilization is about either diverting or downright repressing insincts and I start to wonder whether those religions were not so much prudish and anti sex but more along the lines of realistic when it comes to human nature and pro civilization. [/quote]

On the other hand, it seems that periods of greatest scientific and cultural progress also seem to be periods where sexual morality was a lot more lax.[/quote]

Yup. Not a lot of culture or science going on during the Victorian Era.[/quote]

You lost me… I really don’t know a thing about the Victorian Era.[/quote]

Its the era in which fucking machines were invented, and women went to their doctors to orgasm. [/quote]

They also weren’t all that “sexually moral”.

Wearing a wig and stockings brought out every pale skinned sex freak in the country.[/quote]

So… I’m guessing that was the point. Victorian Era was actually innovation + loose sexual morals.

But maybe not. That went over my head. I don’t like this feeling.

152

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
In fact, I doubt that you can discern “quality” from “non-quality” when it comes to women.

So what you would or would not do, lets see, shall we?

[/quote]

I’d be curious to hear how different guys describe quality.
[/quote]

Quality is a woman not thinking everything is about her always.

Quality is a woman very quickly trying to help you in whatever it is you are trying to do assuming this is being reciprocated.

Quality is NOT thinking you know everything all of the time.

Quality is not being a bopper…or choosing a guy based on his brand names worn.

Quality is just being quiet some times and NOT asking “what are you thinking about”.

Quality is being there no matter what if asked for help and asking questions later. Trust me, do that, and I will do the same.

Quality is saving the quick judgment and looking deeper into what a man is really about.

Quality is on the downfall.

Entitled Bitch is on the rise.[/quote]

Yes. I agree.

153

Was there ever a period in history where “sexual morality” wasn’t “lax”?

The Victorian Era was stereotypically sexually repressed, where “virtue” was paramount, and yet they were just as randy and perverted as the Greeks, the Romans…or as we are.

154

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]theBeth wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]theBeth wrote:

After a couple decades of observation and experience, I am not jaded but I do wonder if humans are really programmed to be monogamous - Or is that a construct of religion and society that has turned into a preprogrammed expectation.

I’d recommend John Demartini’s books, especially “The Breakthrough Experience” and “The Heart of Love”. Tough reading, but life altering.[/quote]

Just to respond to that one quickly.

No, we are not monogamous.

Women prefer rotating polyandry, men polygamy when they can get it.

However, civilization is about either diverting or downright repressing insincts and I start to wonder whether those religions were not so much prudish and anti sex but more along the lines of realistic when it comes to human nature and pro civilization. [/quote]

On the other hand, it seems that periods of greatest scientific and cultural progress also seem to be periods where sexual morality was a lot more lax.[/quote]

Yup. Not a lot of culture or science going on during the Victorian Era.[/quote]

You lost me… I really don’t know a thing about the Victorian Era.[/quote]

Its the era in which fucking machines were invented, and women went to their doctors to orgasm. [/quote]

They also weren’t all that “sexually moral”.

Wearing a wig and stockings brought out every pale skinned sex freak in the country.[/quote]

You’re thinking Georgian. Victorian was 19th century. Wigs and stockings were out of fashion by then.

155

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Was there ever a period in history where “sexual morality” wasn’t “lax”?

The Victorian Era was stereotypically sexually repressed, where “virtue” was paramount, and yet they were just as randy and perverted as the Greeks, the Romans…or as we are. [/quote]

Oh, I am pretty sure the pinnacle of achievement for a proud Victorian father was to ship off his daughter for a few years so she could get banged by a train of jocks and frat boys…

Maybe get a tat or two?

156

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Was there ever a period in history where “sexual morality” wasn’t “lax”?

The Victorian Era was stereotypically sexually repressed, where “virtue” was paramount, and yet they were just as randy and perverted as the Greeks, the Romans…or as we are. [/quote]

Oh, I am pretty sure the pinnacle of achievement for a proud Victorian father was to ship off his daughter for a few years so she could get banged by a train of jocks and frat boys…

Maybe get a tat or two?

[/quote]

The daughters who were so inclined were shipped off to Australia.

157

[quote]theBeth wrote:
I haven’t heard the term “bopper” in ages. And I agree, X.[/quote]
Same. I haven’t heard it since my chibi days.

158

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]theBeth wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]theBeth wrote:

After a couple decades of observation and experience, I am not jaded but I do wonder if humans are really programmed to be monogamous - Or is that a construct of religion and society that has turned into a preprogrammed expectation.

I’d recommend John Demartini’s books, especially “The Breakthrough Experience” and “The Heart of Love”. Tough reading, but life altering.[/quote]

Just to respond to that one quickly.

No, we are not monogamous.

Women prefer rotating polyandry, men polygamy when they can get it.

However, civilization is about either diverting or downright repressing insincts and I start to wonder whether those religions were not so much prudish and anti sex but more along the lines of realistic when it comes to human nature and pro civilization. [/quote]

On the other hand, it seems that periods of greatest scientific and cultural progress also seem to be periods where sexual morality was a lot more lax.[/quote]

Yup. Not a lot of culture or science going on during the Victorian Era.[/quote]

You lost me… I really don’t know a thing about the Victorian Era.[/quote]

Its the era in which fucking machines were invented, and women went to their doctors to orgasm. [/quote]

They also weren’t all that “sexually moral”.

Wearing a wig and stockings brought out every pale skinned sex freak in the country.[/quote]

You’re thinking Georgian. Victorian was 19th century. Wigs and stockings were out of fashion by then. [/quote]

Tis be true, the bourgeousie had replaced the aristocracy as the dominant social force and they could only hold that position by internalizing strict social and sexual mores.

Instead of relying heavily on wigs and stocking and parfumes to maks their smell, they boldly went were no men had gone before, well, at least no European and did the unthinkable, they bathed regularily, whether they needed to or not!!!

So yes, the aristrocracy banged like rabbits and the poor did too, like today more or less, but the rising middle class consistent of protestant, hard working people who kept their sexual urges in check.

159

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Was there ever a period in history where “sexual morality” wasn’t “lax”?

The Victorian Era was stereotypically sexually repressed, where “virtue” was paramount, and yet they were just as randy and perverted as the Greeks, the Romans…or as we are. [/quote]

The Christian “Dark Ages”?

The initial Islamic conquests? Not the conquerers themselves, but the subsequent Muslim rule.

Those are the two major lulls in scientific, technological and cultural progress that I can think of. And, as far as I know, sexuality was relatively repressed.

But it’s very likely I’m suffering from bias from historians as well as my own selection bias. So, I could be totally wrong.

Greece and Rome, a few of the early Persian empires, certain Indian empires, the Enlightenment… all seem to have had a reputation for their more, I dunno, lax morals and open/progressive/liberal sexuality.

160

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Was there ever a period in history where “sexual morality” wasn’t “lax”?

The Victorian Era was stereotypically sexually repressed, where “virtue” was paramount, and yet they were just as randy and perverted as the Greeks, the Romans…or as we are. [/quote]

Oh, I am pretty sure the pinnacle of achievement for a proud Victorian father was to ship off his daughter for a few years so she could get banged by a train of jocks and frat boys…

Maybe get a tat or two?

[/quote]

The daughters who were so inclined were shipped off to Australia. [/quote]

That might explain a few things…

The jorney had of course the benefit of making the aquaintance of tons of horny sailors.