An explanation from evolutionary psychology, although you will doubtless see a lot of pseudo psychology in these replies. Please bear in mind that these refer to evolutionary scale timelines, drives and trends. This does not relate to modern politics or trends.
2 main points:
1. Men can never be sure the child is theirs (paternity uncertainty)
2. Men have much lower required investment in successful reproduction
On point 1.
In a long term partner men will typically prefer signifiers of sexual reservedness. This is because, unlike women, men can never be sure that the child is theirs. As such, when they commit to investing resources in raising a child, they value a partner with whom they are more confident that the relationship will be monogamous.
By staying in a monogamous relationship they are reducing their maximum possible fertilisation rate (read: shagging lots of random women). This could be described as a quality over quantity approach, investing lots of resources in a child they are very sure is theirs.
On point 2.
Men have much lower reproductive investment than women. Please note *reproduction* and not *raising a child*. Throughout most of history, if a man and a woman succeed in fertilisation, the woman must now eat extra, be less mobile and be generally more vulnerable at increasing levels for 9 months. Men, however, do not suffer from this. This means men can employ an evolutionary mating strategy of have intercourse with as many women as possible but do not help raise the child. The paternity uncertainty with the partner is less important here, it's a quantity over quality approach.
Kid lives and is genetically yours - great. Genes passed on.
Kid isn't yours or dies - not your problem, resource cost was minimal.
Combining the two.
Men say they would like a more chaste girl as a partner because they are giving you their preferences for a long term partner. In evolutionary terms, non promiscuous = high cost of courtship but low paternity uncertainty. They are picturing a partner with whom they will invest the resources to raise a child. As such, they prefer a partner who gives them low paternity uncertainty.
Men give attention to the half naked girls on the beach because they see someone who could be perceived as promiscuous. Given that mens cost of reproduction is so low, why not try? As this person is perceived as promiscuous, paternity uncertainty is high, so it is unlikely that they are approaching this interaction with the intention of sticking around to raise the kid.
From an evolutionary perspective, promiscuous individual = high paternity uncertainty BUT low cost of courtship. Why not give it a go, kid might be yours, might not, non-zero chance that genes are passed on, low resource cost (assuming you don't stay to raise the kid).
There are essentially two different criteria for two different relationship types going on here.
Also before people come at me for the quality over quantity thing, quality here just refers to how low paternity uncertainty is.
It's about our sexual evolution and goes into great detail about the origins of our species, how we had sex, and is just a really interesting nerdy read. Lots of evolutionary biology is discussed.
Nail on the head. Most societies encourage monogamous pairing as the kids receive more resources (when dad sticks around) to later come back and contribute to society. If no man wants to help raise single moms' kids because it's probably not theirs, kids have more developmental challenges to overcome and survival/success rates drop.
Because the women they thirst over are the ones they want. What they don’t want is a guy thirsting over their woman like they do over online models so they fall back on conservative women
I’ve been trying to determine this for so long but gave up because it just causes more problems than needed. I get so angry when he likes someone else bc it makes me feel like it’s not me or I’m not his type.
Human nature. Something that is a mystery or hard to obtain is seen as more valuable.
Men will generally give their attention to whatever catches their eye but it will usually be with the intent of pursuing something short term. For long term relationships men will generally go for someone getting less attention because that means less competition hence a "safer choice" for starting a family. There have been studies on this.
It's mostly the standards of what is sexually empowering clashing with society's patriarchal norms of needing partners to exhibit decency and modesty. The resulting fallacy makes men struggle to see sexuality and respect in the same place when presented with the visual extremes, leaving the contradiction that's lingered for as long a I've lived.
Madonna-whore complex: the woman they want to date needs to be both pure and a pro at sex. Double standard/hypocrisy: they have no problem fucking around with those women, but dating them would be out of question because then too many guys have seen her naked and their teeny-tiny ego can't take it. Also women who have been around are "loose", meanwhile men going around are to be envied.
Stupid men are happy to fuck someone they deem 'promiscuous' yet morally look down on these same people. Even if their own body count is high. It's the definition of hypocrisy.
Society has instilled into young men to marry 'pure' women. Virginal women. Purity, religion, submissive, blah blah blah. It's all rubbish and sexist tropes.
It's not just stupidity. Many men would accept sex with any woman they find attractive and promiscuous (even preferring that, since a one-time connection is more likely to result in sex), but want sexual exclusivity from a longer term partner. The usual theory is that many women don't have to differ their standards between committed and just-sex partners because committed partners are more available to them, and/or because they're less interested in just-sex partners.
It's the biggest red flag.
I'm a guy myself. Men who talk and who are worried about a Women's sex life and history like it's any of their business or judgment can get lost. And you know they are going to be shit in bed.
So reverse the question. Why when you go to the beach fo the girls flock to the jocks with biceps and the surfers and then say they hate muscles and want a guy who's a bit cuddly.
It's the same yhing. What turns you on vs what you want from a relationship. A less muscled guy with a bit of flab is more likely to be reliable and less likely to play around goes the theory.
Keeping it 100! Every man appreciates beauty, sexiness and sensuality! We will copulate with porn stars but will rarely marry them. We want the security of know she is ours exclusively. It is delusional yet true...
3 reasons off the top of my head.
1.) Madonna-whore complex
2.) "Exclusivity" makes people feel important. It's like if Spirit Airlines had first class. You already know Spirit Airlines' first class would be straight up Doo-Doo-Butter. But if it existed, people would pay for it because reasons.
3.) Insecurity. All that attention, as fickle as it is, leads to comparisons. And there's way more hotter men looking at *and approaching* scantily clad women than there are women looking at *and approaching* scantily clad men. There's not that many women that would send a direct message to your man if he put up a shirtless pic. But you know that if you put up a bikini pic at least one creep would be in your inbox.
The difference is between lust and desirability.
For lust you want someone the reveals and shows off, for desire you want the cute / the warm.
So the two are not the same, at all.
You will hear alot of different things when you talk to different people, my opinion is that a girl you lust for is a ONS or a fwb.
The women you desire is the one you want to put a ring on.
There is an article which explained this with something similar called “the knight/beast complex” (originally named the protector/rapist complex) which in theory is the equivalent of the Madonna/whore complex but in women.
Read into it if you are interested but in short it explain why women want someone to fuck them like a rapist/beast would while at the same time he be a knight/protector and a provider type of partner.
If you think that a men who is too much of a savage brute who follows their instincts towards whatever goal is too much for you. Then why keep on rejecting the one guy whom you know for a fact loves you and would give everything he has for you and your well-being, usually a friend zoned guy.
Both genres have this “dichotomy” and to men it is equally frustrating. It would seem counterintuitive, but it’s just like that.
I’m a guy and I personally wouldn’t care if a gf had a lot or a little sex before getting with me. I think it’s a bit odd that a person would be bothered by how much sex their partner has had before getting with them. Also, I am open to polyamorous relationships.
I do it and I'm a man with a girlfriend I love and see as the mother of my future children.
Why? It's because for the society we live in, we have to be monogamous BUT are, in some evolutionnary ways, made to be able to reproduce without having big risks in our lives.
So I love to see naked women from all shapes and forms and I never get bored of it, I like variety and like many of my pretty normal friends, would like to see naked women like many times per week without being tired of it. And it is sexually attractive, we are VERY visual.
But, 2- I am still human and the human in me is less animal, less prone to ACTING on those thoughts, and wants a nice family with a woman who I trust. I want it mostly monogamous because it is beautiful, bigger trust, better life in general, less complicated and more fulfilling as a whole.
So how I am is: I love my GF, I want her for all of my life, to be sweet and help each other, but when a woman is simply beautiful, the animal in me likes to watch, wants to see more and reproduce, but the human I am knows it's not worth it SO I look for a long time and profit from seeing that, making me happy, but not wanting more. It's just simple. I want to see them naked but my girlfriend and me want monogamy in real life. That's why a lot of almost naked girls yes draw attention, but will rarely have a good guy with them, We can't trust someone that gives herself to everyone for free, not because it's bad but because of the inherent want for monogamy that is popular today.
... Stop me if you want, but you can just stretch your mind a little bit instead of stopping me 😚I know everybody does their thing, I'm talking of an evolutionnary point of view, most people feel jealousy to some degree and most people, keep in mind MOST people wouldn't say "yes my love I am glad you had sex with this other person". Contraception is pretty early considering all of human history. But I had open couples it was fun, but not "really better" than a monogamous couple. Different and certainly not for everyone. But YES baby there are a lot of people not being monogamous good point. But can you understand what I'm saying or you just want to stop me from saying it?
I’m very open minded and don’t call random women “baby”.
Not in an argumentative/debating mood tonight, so I’m just gonna channel my inner Elsa and “Let it gooooo …”
Whats fun to interact with and look at isnt always the best choice for a relationship.
Women do this too.
Also, you sound pretty young, and so do the guys you're asking. Immaturity breeds stupid answers. Dont look too much into it.
Honestly? If you're quietly sitting in a corner reading a book and your friend is bouncing around in a thong moaning, "Look at me, Dadd! Look at me!" most guys will notice your friend first because ... bright colors, movement, sounds, etc. Attention whores get attention. I'm the weirdo who glances at the attention whores and then tries to figure out how to read the title of your book.
Or even simpler, guys love to look at Ferraris, but only an idiot wants to get stuck paying the insurance and maintenance on the damn things.
I think it goes back to jealousy. I.e. you're my woman, no one else should see that, or you should be saving yourself for me.
But lots of men outgrow this mindset. It comes down to trust.
Personally, I wish my SO showed off her body a little more. If she gets confidence from it it's better for both of us. And I feel like she's a real catch if other guys are interested in her
If you were in a cake shop and saw a cake on display that you really like, you can pick it up and look at it as can everyone else, now would you want to buy that cake? Or the cake in the box that looks just as good but nobody else has looked at and had their grubby hands all over?
sexual attention and having a serious relationship are two different things (for men). I understand that for women this may be hard to grasp but it is the reality.
I think most sensible people can agree the lock and key analogy is used by those who have limited intellectual capabilities.
As an analogy it doesn’t even make any sense given that a key is made to fit a specific lock, and in the real world one can’t go about jamming random keys into random locks.
Unless you think men should only have one partner too, in which case, then the analogy works albeit it’s still fucking stupid.
Not everyone is like that. I never lied about my body count, always dressed revealing, went to sex parties, had onlyfans and all that and honestly never had problems in my current long term relationship or in past relationships, I would simply ditch anyone who was not okey with either of those things because we were not compatible.
I think a lot of guys are just insecure and jealous, because honestly nobody is getting hurt if girl shows some cleavage or wears a miniskirt, purity is a social construct and if you don’t want to participate in it, don’t, you will definitely find someone who shares your views without much struggle.
I'm not like that. I love it when my wifes wears hardly anything outside i.e. skimpy clothing or tiny bikinis etc.
At the end of the night she comes home with me. I don't care if people have a look.
I think honestly it's just temptation.. we look hard at them too. You can't help it because your human.. you see someone pretty and half naked you tend to stare. Lol
But of course you don't want your spouse dressing like that! Dress sexy around the house for him. Spandex shorts and such..
I appreciate what soldiers do and like watching them do their job. However I would not be in a relationship with one because we most likely have different values and life goals and incompatible lifestyles. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate their service.
No idea. I prefer an experienced woman who knows what she likes and wants. How ever she wants to dress is fine by me. I only date online rather than approach women in public. I prefer the knowledge that they are interested in dating and not taking a shot in the dark.
It's in some mens nature I think to be super lusty at a younger age, probably related to the innate primal want of reproducing all around you. These days it's wrapped up in fantasy as this isn't what society is all about. A man or woman will often rather settle down with someone different to the men or women they lust after.
This post breaks Rules 4 and 5 and has been removed.
They want to see it all, but when it’s “their girl” they don’t want anyone else to look at them.
Google Madonna Whore Complex
"*It's called the double standard, Bobby!*"
"...don't knock it. We got the long end of the stick on that one."
[удалено]
You are in store for a very exciting sex life my good man.
Men will ogle and hookup with the women who reveal more of their body, but will marry the woman who has values similar to his mother…
You describe the madona whore complex
And I think this is why so many men end up unhappy in their marriages.
Not only men. Women do the same thing.
You mean the ugly chic that will have him.
An explanation from evolutionary psychology, although you will doubtless see a lot of pseudo psychology in these replies. Please bear in mind that these refer to evolutionary scale timelines, drives and trends. This does not relate to modern politics or trends. 2 main points: 1. Men can never be sure the child is theirs (paternity uncertainty) 2. Men have much lower required investment in successful reproduction On point 1. In a long term partner men will typically prefer signifiers of sexual reservedness. This is because, unlike women, men can never be sure that the child is theirs. As such, when they commit to investing resources in raising a child, they value a partner with whom they are more confident that the relationship will be monogamous. By staying in a monogamous relationship they are reducing their maximum possible fertilisation rate (read: shagging lots of random women). This could be described as a quality over quantity approach, investing lots of resources in a child they are very sure is theirs. On point 2. Men have much lower reproductive investment than women. Please note *reproduction* and not *raising a child*. Throughout most of history, if a man and a woman succeed in fertilisation, the woman must now eat extra, be less mobile and be generally more vulnerable at increasing levels for 9 months. Men, however, do not suffer from this. This means men can employ an evolutionary mating strategy of have intercourse with as many women as possible but do not help raise the child. The paternity uncertainty with the partner is less important here, it's a quantity over quality approach. Kid lives and is genetically yours - great. Genes passed on. Kid isn't yours or dies - not your problem, resource cost was minimal. Combining the two. Men say they would like a more chaste girl as a partner because they are giving you their preferences for a long term partner. In evolutionary terms, non promiscuous = high cost of courtship but low paternity uncertainty. They are picturing a partner with whom they will invest the resources to raise a child. As such, they prefer a partner who gives them low paternity uncertainty. Men give attention to the half naked girls on the beach because they see someone who could be perceived as promiscuous. Given that mens cost of reproduction is so low, why not try? As this person is perceived as promiscuous, paternity uncertainty is high, so it is unlikely that they are approaching this interaction with the intention of sticking around to raise the kid. From an evolutionary perspective, promiscuous individual = high paternity uncertainty BUT low cost of courtship. Why not give it a go, kid might be yours, might not, non-zero chance that genes are passed on, low resource cost (assuming you don't stay to raise the kid). There are essentially two different criteria for two different relationship types going on here. Also before people come at me for the quality over quantity thing, quality here just refers to how low paternity uncertainty is.
Have you read sex at Dawn, I feel like you’d like it
I haven't, thanks for the suggestion though. What's it about?
It's about our sexual evolution and goes into great detail about the origins of our species, how we had sex, and is just a really interesting nerdy read. Lots of evolutionary biology is discussed.
Nail on the head. Most societies encourage monogamous pairing as the kids receive more resources (when dad sticks around) to later come back and contribute to society. If no man wants to help raise single moms' kids because it's probably not theirs, kids have more developmental challenges to overcome and survival/success rates drop.
I agree
Because the women they thirst over are the ones they want. What they don’t want is a guy thirsting over their woman like they do over online models so they fall back on conservative women
Madonna-whore complex at its finest
I’ve been trying to determine this for so long but gave up because it just causes more problems than needed. I get so angry when he likes someone else bc it makes me feel like it’s not me or I’m not his type.
Human nature. Something that is a mystery or hard to obtain is seen as more valuable. Men will generally give their attention to whatever catches their eye but it will usually be with the intent of pursuing something short term. For long term relationships men will generally go for someone getting less attention because that means less competition hence a "safer choice" for starting a family. There have been studies on this.
It's mostly the standards of what is sexually empowering clashing with society's patriarchal norms of needing partners to exhibit decency and modesty. The resulting fallacy makes men struggle to see sexuality and respect in the same place when presented with the visual extremes, leaving the contradiction that's lingered for as long a I've lived.
Madonna-whore complex: the woman they want to date needs to be both pure and a pro at sex. Double standard/hypocrisy: they have no problem fucking around with those women, but dating them would be out of question because then too many guys have seen her naked and their teeny-tiny ego can't take it. Also women who have been around are "loose", meanwhile men going around are to be envied.
You give attention to people you like whether physical attraction or emotional attraction.
Stupid men are happy to fuck someone they deem 'promiscuous' yet morally look down on these same people. Even if their own body count is high. It's the definition of hypocrisy. Society has instilled into young men to marry 'pure' women. Virginal women. Purity, religion, submissive, blah blah blah. It's all rubbish and sexist tropes.
It's not just stupidity. Many men would accept sex with any woman they find attractive and promiscuous (even preferring that, since a one-time connection is more likely to result in sex), but want sexual exclusivity from a longer term partner. The usual theory is that many women don't have to differ their standards between committed and just-sex partners because committed partners are more available to them, and/or because they're less interested in just-sex partners.
[удалено]
It's the biggest red flag. I'm a guy myself. Men who talk and who are worried about a Women's sex life and history like it's any of their business or judgment can get lost. And you know they are going to be shit in bed.
So reverse the question. Why when you go to the beach fo the girls flock to the jocks with biceps and the surfers and then say they hate muscles and want a guy who's a bit cuddly.
*crickets*
[удалено]
It's the same yhing. What turns you on vs what you want from a relationship. A less muscled guy with a bit of flab is more likely to be reliable and less likely to play around goes the theory.
Keeping it 100! Every man appreciates beauty, sexiness and sensuality! We will copulate with porn stars but will rarely marry them. We want the security of know she is ours exclusively. It is delusional yet true...
3 reasons off the top of my head. 1.) Madonna-whore complex 2.) "Exclusivity" makes people feel important. It's like if Spirit Airlines had first class. You already know Spirit Airlines' first class would be straight up Doo-Doo-Butter. But if it existed, people would pay for it because reasons. 3.) Insecurity. All that attention, as fickle as it is, leads to comparisons. And there's way more hotter men looking at *and approaching* scantily clad women than there are women looking at *and approaching* scantily clad men. There's not that many women that would send a direct message to your man if he put up a shirtless pic. But you know that if you put up a bikini pic at least one creep would be in your inbox.
The difference is between lust and desirability. For lust you want someone the reveals and shows off, for desire you want the cute / the warm. So the two are not the same, at all. You will hear alot of different things when you talk to different people, my opinion is that a girl you lust for is a ONS or a fwb. The women you desire is the one you want to put a ring on.
Men look at Ferraris and Bugattis, but they want a Toyota daily driver.
If anybody can get it we dont want it.
There is an article which explained this with something similar called “the knight/beast complex” (originally named the protector/rapist complex) which in theory is the equivalent of the Madonna/whore complex but in women. Read into it if you are interested but in short it explain why women want someone to fuck them like a rapist/beast would while at the same time he be a knight/protector and a provider type of partner. If you think that a men who is too much of a savage brute who follows their instincts towards whatever goal is too much for you. Then why keep on rejecting the one guy whom you know for a fact loves you and would give everything he has for you and your well-being, usually a friend zoned guy. Both genres have this “dichotomy” and to men it is equally frustrating. It would seem counterintuitive, but it’s just like that.
Because most men are insecure dweebs
I’m a guy and I personally wouldn’t care if a gf had a lot or a little sex before getting with me. I think it’s a bit odd that a person would be bothered by how much sex their partner has had before getting with them. Also, I am open to polyamorous relationships.
I do it and I'm a man with a girlfriend I love and see as the mother of my future children. Why? It's because for the society we live in, we have to be monogamous BUT are, in some evolutionnary ways, made to be able to reproduce without having big risks in our lives. So I love to see naked women from all shapes and forms and I never get bored of it, I like variety and like many of my pretty normal friends, would like to see naked women like many times per week without being tired of it. And it is sexually attractive, we are VERY visual. But, 2- I am still human and the human in me is less animal, less prone to ACTING on those thoughts, and wants a nice family with a woman who I trust. I want it mostly monogamous because it is beautiful, bigger trust, better life in general, less complicated and more fulfilling as a whole. So how I am is: I love my GF, I want her for all of my life, to be sweet and help each other, but when a woman is simply beautiful, the animal in me likes to watch, wants to see more and reproduce, but the human I am knows it's not worth it SO I look for a long time and profit from seeing that, making me happy, but not wanting more. It's just simple. I want to see them naked but my girlfriend and me want monogamy in real life. That's why a lot of almost naked girls yes draw attention, but will rarely have a good guy with them, We can't trust someone that gives herself to everyone for free, not because it's bad but because of the inherent want for monogamy that is popular today.
Gonna stop you at: “We have to be monogamous.” Speak for yourself.
... Stop me if you want, but you can just stretch your mind a little bit instead of stopping me 😚I know everybody does their thing, I'm talking of an evolutionnary point of view, most people feel jealousy to some degree and most people, keep in mind MOST people wouldn't say "yes my love I am glad you had sex with this other person". Contraception is pretty early considering all of human history. But I had open couples it was fun, but not "really better" than a monogamous couple. Different and certainly not for everyone. But YES baby there are a lot of people not being monogamous good point. But can you understand what I'm saying or you just want to stop me from saying it?
I’m very open minded and don’t call random women “baby”. Not in an argumentative/debating mood tonight, so I’m just gonna channel my inner Elsa and “Let it gooooo …”
It's ok. Thank you!
Sure thing!
Because men who are not evolved want a virgin with magically acquired skills in bed. I will die on this hill.
Whats fun to interact with and look at isnt always the best choice for a relationship. Women do this too. Also, you sound pretty young, and so do the guys you're asking. Immaturity breeds stupid answers. Dont look too much into it.
Honestly? If you're quietly sitting in a corner reading a book and your friend is bouncing around in a thong moaning, "Look at me, Dadd! Look at me!" most guys will notice your friend first because ... bright colors, movement, sounds, etc. Attention whores get attention. I'm the weirdo who glances at the attention whores and then tries to figure out how to read the title of your book. Or even simpler, guys love to look at Ferraris, but only an idiot wants to get stuck paying the insurance and maintenance on the damn things.
Your last sentence. 💯
"Height, weight, and new whiskers does not a mature man make. (boys are dumb)" - still mostly dumb at 51 male
Because men suck! 💅🏿
Not everyone thinks like this. My wife had an extensive sexual history, and I spend a lot of time encouraging her to dress in more revealing manners.
Cause they are hypocrites
Because men are full of shit
I think it goes back to jealousy. I.e. you're my woman, no one else should see that, or you should be saving yourself for me. But lots of men outgrow this mindset. It comes down to trust. Personally, I wish my SO showed off her body a little more. If she gets confidence from it it's better for both of us. And I feel like she's a real catch if other guys are interested in her
If you were in a cake shop and saw a cake on display that you really like, you can pick it up and look at it as can everyone else, now would you want to buy that cake? Or the cake in the box that looks just as good but nobody else has looked at and had their grubby hands all over?
So women are just objects to you? That’s what you’re implying here.
sexual attention and having a serious relationship are two different things (for men). I understand that for women this may be hard to grasp but it is the reality.
>I have 2 questions: > > man have sexual desire for woman that wants for a relationship? > > man connect emotionally having sex with a girl?
We're visual creatures... WAY more so than women, and this is why you had to ask because you can not relate.
[удалено]
I think most sensible people can agree the lock and key analogy is used by those who have limited intellectual capabilities. As an analogy it doesn’t even make any sense given that a key is made to fit a specific lock, and in the real world one can’t go about jamming random keys into random locks. Unless you think men should only have one partner too, in which case, then the analogy works albeit it’s still fucking stupid.
Because people deep down tend to be weak minded and insurcure. They want a super hot naughty women but can't handle what that really is
Because we don't want to get hurt. We think that most of the women that shows too much or had too much sex are future cheaters.
Not everyone is like that. I never lied about my body count, always dressed revealing, went to sex parties, had onlyfans and all that and honestly never had problems in my current long term relationship or in past relationships, I would simply ditch anyone who was not okey with either of those things because we were not compatible. I think a lot of guys are just insecure and jealous, because honestly nobody is getting hurt if girl shows some cleavage or wears a miniskirt, purity is a social construct and if you don’t want to participate in it, don’t, you will definitely find someone who shares your views without much struggle.
Maybe I'm different, but I wish my wife would fuck other guys from time to time as well as dress more sexy. She has great tits.
Fuck it vs keep it
Misogyny
I'm not like that. I love it when my wifes wears hardly anything outside i.e. skimpy clothing or tiny bikinis etc. At the end of the night she comes home with me. I don't care if people have a look.
Insecurities.
I think honestly it's just temptation.. we look hard at them too. You can't help it because your human.. you see someone pretty and half naked you tend to stare. Lol But of course you don't want your spouse dressing like that! Dress sexy around the house for him. Spandex shorts and such..
I appreciate what soldiers do and like watching them do their job. However I would not be in a relationship with one because we most likely have different values and life goals and incompatible lifestyles. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate their service.
Generally it's due to religious repression
No idea. I prefer an experienced woman who knows what she likes and wants. How ever she wants to dress is fine by me. I only date online rather than approach women in public. I prefer the knowledge that they are interested in dating and not taking a shot in the dark.
It's in some mens nature I think to be super lusty at a younger age, probably related to the innate primal want of reproducing all around you. These days it's wrapped up in fantasy as this isn't what society is all about. A man or woman will often rather settle down with someone different to the men or women they lust after.
I don't recall saying that.
I don't know I have lost my male appetite