These Things GUARANTEE Long Lasting Mind-Blowing Sex

Image

A previous post noted how the #MeToo movement should discuss what goes into the making of sexual assault, prompted by an online article.

Two people going on a date, and the date ends badly.  Badly enough that it ends up in the papers.  So sad.

It happens a lot.  It also happens that most young people don’t have any of the same rules in place that existed a hundred years ago.

I’m not saying that’s bad or good.  Lots of things are changing today, and fast.  But lets look at three things that could have guaranteed that the two people in the article would have either 1) ended their date much earlier on a happier note, or 2) found each other far more appealing leading to great physical activities and even more dates.

Here’s the three things.

Compassion:  This is all about being part of the other person’s pain, sympathizing, empathizing, and sharing.  Lessening pain is a great deal of what being in a relationship is all about.  The greatest of pains is being alone.  Our species is designed to be in a group, and the best group is two people.  It’s also the best way to get to know the inside of someone’s head.

Sensitivity:  This goes beyond compassion in that it keeps you from talking about yourself instead of them.  It means you try and dig deeper so that you can truly understand the deepest parts of your future lover’s heart.

Respect:  This is the other end of sensitive, because it works like your emotional seat-belt.  We have urges to help, especially those we wish to fall in love with.  Men generally try to fix problems with advice; “You should tell your mother this!”  Women tend to try and dig deeper, encouraging as much talk as possible; “What were your ex girlfriend’s feelings?”  Leave them alone.

These three things are the key to begin learning about someone.

Each of these requires you to listen, to learn, to have empathy, and lots of patience.

And for goodness sake, restraint.  Do you want a long term relationship or just a warm body for the night?  Don’t go taking your clothes off until you can be absolutely sure that the other person has the same purpose as yours.

Good luck!

 

Comedian and Coquette 2

Image

A previous post noted how the #MeToo movement should discuss what goes into the making of sexual assault, prompted by the following excerpt.

Ansari stands accused by one woman of ignoring “clear nonverbal cues” during a September date, pressuring her, once she was undressed in his apartment, to engage in sexual conduct with him, then breaking it off when she said “no.” Many have argued that the behavior described was not assault, nor even it newsworthy.

We know absolutely for sure that these two people went on a date, and that the date didn’t go well.  Our challenge in the last post was to figure out what each one of them wanted before and during their date.

That was a trick question.

All we need to do is confirm that they have a purpose that is different from each other.  That’s it.  And it’s easy.

He wanted her to take her clothes off.  He wanted to do something physical.

She didn’t want to take her clothes off, even though she did.  She didn’t want to do anything physical, and it seems that she didn’t.

In a sense, our problem, and theirs, becomes simple.  All we need is a system that prevents two parties from behaving in some way that offends the other, without determining their underlying purpose ahead of time.

In business and law, that’s called negotiation.

When it comes to love, in any form, it’s trickier, because we want to deal with raw emotion.  Bringing any kind of rationality to the process is a real unromantic move.

What do we do?

As a group, as a society, we can teach and reinforce a better way for people to interact.  We don’t have to let the invisible hand of Adam Smith tell us how to make love.  We need the guidance of our great-great grand parents who were far more cautious in their day.

In fact, there are three things to look for in a date that can guarantee an excellent sexual relationship.  They also go a long way to ensuring a long lasting relationship as well, but this is going to focus on getting physical.

After all, it seems that’s where the problem always starts.

See you next time.

 

Pride and Prejudice: Entail and Entitlement

Image

Jane Austen took on some major themes in her work.  One of those was biology, and I’ll get around to that one of these days.

Another was “the entail.”  It’s a subject that drives Mrs. Bennet crazy because it means she’ll be destitute when Mr. Bennet dies.  Of course, she has to live longer than Mr. Bennet, as he reminds her so well.  Of course course, he may want to die first!

The first few times I read the book, I glossed over the entail as archaic and unimportant.  I have a feeling most people treat it this way.

Then I learned what it was, an English law that passed property to male relatives, and understand it better in terms of motivating Mrs. Bennet, and Jane Austen.  Female suffrage and our society’s slow realization that women are people have made such laws obsolete.

However, now that I’m over-analyzing Jane and P&P, I see something else.  This is not an archaic law that Jane describes, it is a fundamental flaw in human character.  And my first clue to this came from etymology.

Whether you use an online site, or the OED, or your old-fashioned dictionary, learning the story that sits behind a word is fun.  Much fun than 99% of today’s video.

Look up entail, and you get a legal transfer of property going back to the 1300s.  Look up entitlement, and you get something similar, dating back to the 1400s.  Mrs. Bennet was complaining about people who get something of value without working for it.  She and her daughters (and staff) work the property, taking care of it, improving it.  Mr. Collins does nothing, and yet he’s destined to inherit Longbourn.

Here’s the fun part.  Mrs. Bennet is complaining about the entail.  The entail represents entitlement.  Today, entitlement is called welfare in many forms: for the poor, for the elderly, and for the military-industrial complex.  Getting lots of money for little or no work.  What a tough life!

Who complains about this kind of government sanctioned transfer of value without requiring work?  Today it’s “conservatives.”  In entertainment, go back 50 years to a television character called Archie Bunker.

Mrs. Bennet is the original Archie Bunker.  Mr. Collins is the original “meathead.”  And the social commentary she (Mrs. Bennet and Jane Austen) makes is the same that today’s staunch conservatives like to shout about.

Jane Austen, still relevant after all these years.  What a gal.

 

 

Comedian and Coquette

Image

This excerpt is from an article suggesting that the #MeToo movement should begin discussing what goes into the making of sexual assault.

Ansari stands accused by one woman of ignoring “clear nonverbal cues” during a September date, pressuring her, once she was undressed in his apartment, to engage in sexual conduct with him, then breaking it off when she said “no.” Many have argued that the behavior described was not assault, nor even it newsworthy.

That’s an excellent idea, and one that is perfect for yours truly.

If you’re willing, let’s consider the basic elements given by the  above excerpt.

  1. Comedian (male) asks woman on a date.
  2. Woman accompanies him to his apartment.
  3. Woman takes her clothes off.
  4. Comedian wants sex (of any sort).
  5. Woman says no.

Where’s the problem?

The problem occurs between numbers 1 and 2.  Each person was attracted enough to each other enough so that they wanted to spend time together.

At the end of that date, she went to his apartment.  We will assume that this was a mutual decision made by both adults, since we have no evidence to the contrary.

Here’s our job as students of behavior: What was the purpose of each individual before, and during, this date?

From the perspective of an evolutionary biologist, we can take the long view and argue that each is looking for a long-term partner.  Therefore each will evaluate the worth of the other, and invest (or risk) an amount appropriate to the value they see in the other.

From the perspective of today’s millennials, we can take the short view and argue that (right NOW) each one is lonely, one or both has a high need for physical body contact, and since they have known each other for over an hour each feels comfortable enough getting naked.  Well, at least one of them did.

The answers are somewhere between these two extremes.  If either one was looking for a life-long partner, then they made poor choices.  If the comedian was looking for a quick hookup, then he also made poor choices.  In either case, what we have is a situation where both people should be pitied, not vilified.

Is there anything we can do that would help prevent this in the future?  It turns out that we already have some time-tested techniques that would allow both of these actors the chance to make much better choices, so that each would be happier in the long run.

I’ll try doing that next time.  For now, keep your clothes on.  It’s always safer that way.

 

Pride and Prejudice: Romanticism

Image

Full disclosure my friends, I’ve got a crush on AustenJane Austen.

Yes, it’s a bit awkward, my being married, her being dead.  But my wife introduced us while I was innocently watching a movie derived from P&P.  So it’s her fault.

I’m stalking Jane by studying P&P like a crazy man.  I’ve read it a bunch of times, and I’m reading it slowly now because (more confessions) I’m writing a novel using P&P as a template.  There’s some role reversals going on, and I never liked how Jane treated Mrs. Bennet, so that’s being tweaked.  I’m making it a bit more modern, like 1980, and I’m having fun.  As a result I’m putting each sentence under a microscope.  I feel like I’m getting a glimpse into Jane’s Brains every now and then.

The point of today’s post is about the romantic movement.  The whole idea was not getting all literal and detailed, but focusing on emotions and relationships.  It’s a great idea, and painters had a lot of fun working in that genre.  It’s harder for a writer, because there is a lot of pressure to attend to silly details that don’t matter.

Examples?  What about hair color, especially for women?  What about dress length, or what someone had for dinner?  What about shoe size, or whether they have a pimple on their nose?

Jane knew all these things were unimportant details.  She left them out.  The only fashion statements she touches has to do with lace (apparently young ladies couldn’t have enough) and puffy sleeves being in fashion.  Sure, there’s Mrs. Gardiner’s dress choices as she’s fretting about visiting Pemberley, but who could blame her?

It’s quite a challenge to write in this romantic genre by today’s standards, but I’m going to try.  The fact that Jane did it so elegantly, with just the right amount of detail is only one of the things that makes her so alluring, even today.

The fact that she did this as a young woman in a society that was far from being forward thinking easily puts her into Pantheon.

That’s enough confession for now.  Let me know how you feel about Jane, and if there was anything I missed.

Now, time to re-read Chapter 27 (Volume 1, Chapter 4).  Hello Jane!

 

 

Pure Human

Adults can teach them so much, but we can learn from them as well.

When I’m given the opportunity, I prefer playing with kids.

Watching Dad fight his way back from another broken back, clawing at life itself trying to delay the onset of the inevitable is both heart-wrenching and inspiring.

When I’m playing with kids, I wonder what they’ll be doing in their last years of life.  Will they have the resources to assist them?  Will they be given the same kind of fortitude necessary to fight their last battle to the bitter end?

I always treat kids with a great deal of respect.  Try to understand them, play with them at their level, with generous doses of extra fun.  I act silly, because they seem to enjoy seeing an adult doing silly things.  Things like puffy cheeks, moving tongues, cross-eyes, making coins disappear, rolling in the dirt.

At least they think I’m an adult.  Most adults consider me a giant kid.

But kids are the purest form of human on this planet.  At their age, they can absorb massive amounts of information many times that of an older person.  Their minds are only just starting to model the world around them, and I enjoy helping them form those models so that they are robust, with a small dose of magic for fun.

The only prejudices they carry are those they’ve already learned from parents and peers.  Gender preferences, aversion to spice or dirt, even playing with their food can be formed before they are the ripe old age of one.  Too bad.  The great wild world is already being closed off for them.

But watching those prejudices, and carefully playing at their edges is also part of the fun.  Teaching kids to be skeptics should be part of everyone’s curriculum.

Of course, playing with gravity is already on the syllabus.  It’s one of the first items for every baby who sits in a high chair.  And it’s one of my favorites as well.  Try it now, go ahead, just drop something for fun.

The kids represent our future, they are the ones who will take over as we fade away.  These pure humans will be slowly trained, constrained, contaminated both mentally and physically, and then finally make their way into the wild where they have to prove their economic and social worth.  That’s a lot of stress to put on someone.  By the time they make it through, they just aren’t the same person as when they started out.

We battle the forces of darkness for their sake, not ours.  Dad doesn’t realize it, but his battle is also their battle, tomorrow.  It’s up to you and me to connect the dots, and learn from my Dad in order to help them.

So, enjoy life, play with the kids, and always,

Remember the children.

They are why we fight to survive today.

Heaven Can’t Wait

There’s a whole lot of smart guys telling the rest of the world that religion is a whole bunch of hooey.  Let’s not worry about that.

Instead let’s dwell on the good stuff religion does.

Keeps us together.  Helps maintain some level of respect for each other, and reduce the amount of violence we heap on each other.  Those are all good things.

There’s one big problem every big religion faces.  Getting members motivated to do good, and avoid doing bad.

In psychology this is reinforcement, positive and negative.

In many judeo-christian religions, the biggest positive reinforcement is called heaven.  It’s a place good souls go after the body dies.  Other religions have happy places as well, all with slightly different amenities.

As far as I can tell, way back in the beginning, christianity didn’t emphasize the negative aspects.  It was some centuries before they began talking about hell.  Even more centuries to imagine the idea of purgatory, hell’s waiting room.

Heaven.  Hell.  Whatever you want to call them, you can’t have a good religion without them.  If people believed that there was no heaven or hell, then they would damn well do as they pleased.  We’d be living in anarchy.

Therefore heaven has to exist in order for a religion to work.  Hell also has to exist in some form, but not as importantly as heaven.

Here’s the fun part.  Heaven and hell already exist.  They are real.

And they are both right here.

My actions, your actions, everyone’s actions create ripples throughout society.  They create a disturbance within the force of nature.  They slightly alter the course of humanity’s future.

If you’re a good person, your memory, your actions, your “soul” does remain among the rest of us in the form of what you’ve left behind.  You exist in the sense that we all remember you, respect you, and retain a small part of you long after you are physically gone.

Heaven is right here on Earth.  You live on in the sense that part of you lives on within me.

So the next time you hear someone say religion is bad, or argue that religions shouldn’t exist, remember this.  You’re already in heaven, and they aren’t.  Sit back, be good, and enjoy eternity.

 

Religion, Guilty or Innocent

There’s a whole lot of holier-than-thou smart guys running about, telling the rest of the world that religion is a whole bunch of hooey.

They might be right.

Then again, what’s their problem?

My guess is that they are blaming a whole lot of badness on the fact that religion exists, and a whole lot of people claim to be religious.

First off, I don’t think you can actually blame religion itself for much badness in the world.  Sure, Daesh and Taliban claim to act for religious reasons.  Religious states such as the Vatican or Israel also claim to made their decisions based on holy texts.  Political demigods such as Erdogan and Trump are in the same category in that they have based much of their public appeal on religious grounds.

Wait!  There are so many examples where religion is the basis of great evils in the world.  Doesn’t this mean that religion must be the bad guy here?

No, definitely not.  It’s not logical, it’s not scientific, it’s not fair.  Only because all these players use religion to further their own selfish purposes doesn’t mean that religion itself is the bad guy.

Religion is a device that helps holds groups together.  I talked about this earlier.

I was going to talk about heaven here, but this point is probably more than enough for now.  So, heaven is just going to have to wait.

See you next time!

 

Ms. Socrates

The last time I mentioned Socrates, I was applying for his job.  In my humble opinion, Socrates was the greatest teacher the world has ever seen.  His philosophy was fairly good, and still works for the most part.  The fact that he also showed us how to use logical reasoning properly, laying the groundwork of the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution wasn’t bad either.  Overall, not a bad looking resume.

The fact is, very few great men could be as great as they were if it weren’t for help from others.  Their parents for one thing.  Perhaps the most understated assistant to history’s greatest names are the spouse.  Who cleaned up after Pasteur?  His wife.  Who kept Einstein happy when he was a struggling clerk?  His wife.  First wife.

Which brings us back to Socrates.  He was married.  Had two kids.  But I’m guessing that his family didn’t really have an interest in his work.  After all, what wife or teenagers want their very foundations of reality shaken?

Especially wives.  Telling a spouse that they do something wrong, whether it’s big or small, is not great marriage advice.  Please don’t rinse the dishes BEFORE you put them in the washer.  Why do you leave water in the saucepan?  Put the jam in the SAME place in the fridge each time so I don’t have to search every time.

On the other hand, Ms. Socrates had to work hard so that Socrates could spend quality time with his students.  If she’d been less supportive, Socrates may have spent more time fishing, or practicing some kind of paying trade so that her kids had more toys.

Instead, she worked hard with less.  She made sure her kids were loved and nurtured enough even though their father was busy with things they didn’t understand.

I’m thinking this may be important because, if I ever do get the job of Socrates 2, then my best friend / wife could feel the same way.  I’m pretty sure she’d be the perfect helpmate.  She may not really care about these things, she certainly doesn’t like being challenged, and I learned long ago to never complain about how she does things.  Certainly makes being married that much easier.

But frankly, I don’t think I could do the job without her.  Don’t think I’d want to.  After all, all this work is designed to try and save the world.  But if she’s not in it, the world may simply not be worth it any more.

So, hats off to all you supportive spouses.  And a tip of my toga to Ms. Socrates.  Thank you for helping us all out.

Tusok

 

Harvey Women

A friend of ours showed us a 1945 movie from her collection called “The Harvey Girls.”  It reminded me of the strategy some modern restaurant chains use to get customers.  The difference is that then, the young ladies were far more “proper” and, with marriage as their only career path, may have done more to win the west than anything else.

As I watched one of the big dance numbers with many dozens of lovely young ladies.  I wondered if they had known any Harvey Weinsteins (#MeToo) back then.

I knew the answer.  Probably all of them.

The title of the movie took on a whole new, dark, theme.

As a student of behavior, I wondered if I could objectively estimate how many of those young women had successfully passed the casting couch exam.

  • I knew that some would have the strength to say no.
  • I knew that some would be lucky enough to skip the exam.
  • And I knew that there may have been some honorable men in the industry hiring a young women based on talent and looks rather than other features.

How do we measure the number?

We look at all the films for that studio, for all the studios.  We figure out how many of those young women made it from film to film.  The more movies in which a young woman appears, the better the chance she’d seen at least one casting couch.

Now, here’s the hard part for those who idolize actors like Judy Garland and Angela Lansbury.  These were young women who became legendary.  But they started out exactly like the other young women.

What are the chances they also passed the couch test?  What are the chances that their experiences led them to having a difficult life later?  Consider what happened to Judy Garland.  Perhaps the demons she was fighting weren’t all personal issues, but more like “personnel” issues.

Sometimes watching an old movie isn’t as much fun as it should be.  That’s the downside of studying behavior, we have to take the light with the dark.

Thanks for reading.