Philosophy of adultery

[Irene Loos]

Fyodor,
Are you in any relation to Yesenin? It is good to know that this "material" world still have people who have been experiencing that kind of feeling.

[Fyodor Myshkin]

Originally posted by Irene Loos:
Fyodor,
Are you in any relation to Yesenin?

Yesenin? Never heard of him. Google coughed up one Sergei Aleksandrovich Yesenin. Apart from the fact that both of us committed suicide when we were 30 we are not related

[Anonymous]

Ok, it's not fair, why can some ponder on whether to have more than one lover while others have none?

[Michael Ernest]

It's all relative, I'm sure. Even as some people might be pondering a second lover, still others ponder two lovers at the same time...
It's not a question of opportunity -- that's what's holding you up.

[Shura Balaganov]

Nope, it's not how it works.
The lovers game is a pyramid. The most attractive to opposite sex people are called Alpha (A), next group is called Beta (B) etc. D,E and F are total loosers. So, here how it works. Women always want to get a great catch, they concentrate their search on Alpha males (and, occasionally, on Betas). In general, it is proven that women try to look at partners who are at least 1 level above theirs. Men, however, usually want to sleep with all that moves and wears a blouse. Since this imaginary structure resembles a pyramid, and there are only few Betas and even less Alphas, here goes your womens complaints that there are not enough men out there.
So if your friend is perceived by women as Beta or Alpha, he will get tons of attention. The other person, however, being a programmer-ignoramus (just a broad term here), is completely ignored by females.
Ok, I don't completely believe in this, but if you try to apply it, it works like a charm.
Shura

[Shura Balaganov]

Map, just out of curiosity, when do you have time to read all this AND work AND have a life?
Shura

[Hema Menon]

Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
Map, just out of curiosity, when do you have time to read all this AND work AND have a life?
Shura

Something I always wanted to ask!

[lydia westland]

We admit the feeling of man is different from that of woman. For woman, once she falls in love with a man (seriously), she'd like to spend the whole life with him and seldom think of other relationships. For man, he may have the need to go out and conquer. but since he has already choosed marriage, he has no right to do that any more. otherwise he abandon the contract and hurt his lover. That's the main reason of why "guilty" comes from.
There is a one kind of love that is selffish and can not be shared with others.
Even man has that pyshical need, fulfilling this kind of need is plus but not necessary, and a lot of other funs exist to balance that off. say enjoy the happy times with wife and children. So many men choose not to run the risk.

[Shura Balaganov]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
You may say that "Alphas" in women's eyes are mostly defined by social success, not sexuality, and I will surmise that these two correlate pretty heavily.
I don't completely believe in "pyramid" theory either.
My own theory is that eventually everyone gets what he/she *really* want. If you think you do not get what you want, think again, most likely you do not want it *really* badly. This brings us to the question, what we mean by "really badly", of course.

I agree with what you say about sexual and social success correlating. That's why Корнет Оболенский never gets women that Поручик Ржевский does. I wasn't contradicting with Michael, just bringing another aspect on the table, so to speak.
The "really want" theory is good, but flawed, since there's only a hand full of people on this planet who "really" know what they want, the rest just think they know. If evolution relied on that a vague rule, we all'd be extinct by now. Map, comfort, safety and stability is good for a woman (maybe, how about maternal instinct?), but not for a man.
I suggest we take Russian social shift to another thread?

Originally posted by lydia westland:
Even man has that pyshical need, fulfilling this kind of need is plus but not necessary, and a lot of other funs exist to balance that off.

Lydia, that's what I call wooped man, or pussified man (I am sorry, sherrfis, but please don't take this out of context :roll: ). What makes a man a Man is adrenaline rush. So kissing and hugging just doesn't work. If you only want that please give this world hope and get a puppy.
Oh, there's only one man out there who would help you and love you and do all these cute things, and will not ask for some action in return. He is your Grandpa.
Sorry, had to went, tired of this pussification of humanity.
Shura

[Shura Balaganov]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
"AND work"! "AND have a life"!
LOL!
You must be kidding. If I had all this, why would I theorize about conjugal infidelity?
But I do not blame you. Most likely, you both are victims of wrong assumptions. You think I am real, right? Big mistake. I am not.

Well, assuming she is a Bot is not in my rules of speaking to a lady.
Map, have you thought about that, if you are a Bot (which in Russian means sort of a "shoe"), maybe all you need is another shoe to make a pair?
I found it very difficult for myself to have all three: LEARN, WORK and have a LIFE. Two I can juggle, so I am uneployed....
Shura

[Fyodor Myshkin]

Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:

that's what I call wooped man, or pussified man

What's a pussified man?
Is he some kind of wimp or someone who looks like a cat ?

[Shura Balaganov]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
To tell the truth, my theory came from observing results of local tradition of sterilizing pets....

"all you need"! You confuse me with your Grandma, whose the only need was fully satisfied by a rhetorical Grandpa from the previous post!

Somehow I was posting answer to one post in another thread... Map is impossible to confuse with Grandma, and don't even want to know her "only need".
Always wanted to find this out. What is "conjugal infidelity"?
Shura

[Fyodor Myshkin]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
You think I am real, right? Big mistake. I am not.

http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,10738,2870185,00.html

[Shura Balaganov]

So Map, how is it that you discuss conjugal fidelity and yet flood MD with adultery...ahem...posts.
Shura
[ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: Shura Balaganov ]

[Shura Balaganov]

I dunno....Michael seems to be upset... Not sure about your significant other, but judging by the amount of time you spend here....
I like "." symbol. A lot. It is a good replacement for a moment of silence in a conversation when one panicaly attempts to come up with something to say....Sort of like moment when smoker lights a sigarette. Somehow women find it very manly.
Shura.Balaganov

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
First, it's "conjugal infidelity", not "conjugal fidelity" :roll: Next, you think it would be better for me to practice it rather than discuss?

Are you taking a vote?

[Shura Balaganov]

US Government on adultery
http://www.bilderberg.org/roundtable/emadultery.html
Shura