Apologies if this has been brought up before (I checked the archives before posting):


Why you'd be stupid to cheat on your wife: Unfaithful men have lower IQs, say scientists, by James Tozer

Deceitful and despicable is one description that wronged wives could apply to their cheating husbands.

Plain stupid is another. For scientists have concluded that men who sleep around are likely to have lower IQs.

It is a finding likely to prove of interest to Cheryl Cole as she contemplates her errant partner Ashley's unfaithful ways.

Dr Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist from the London School of Economics and Political Science, said the smarter a man is, the less likely he is to cheat on his partner.

His theory is based on the assertion that through evolutionary history, men have always been 'mildly polygamous'.

That has changed today, however, and Dr Kanazawa explained that entering a sexually exclusive relationship is an 'evolutionarily novel' development for them.

According to his theory, intelligent people are more likely to adopt what in evolutionary terms are new practices - to become 'more evolved'.

Therefore, in the case of fidelity, men who cannot adapt and end up succumbing to temptation and cheating are likely to be more stupid.

'The theory predicts that more intelligent men are more likely to value sexual exclusivity than less intelligent men,' he explained.

According to his theory, the link between fidelity and intelligence does not apply to women because they have always been expected to be faithful to one mate - even in polygamous societies.

Dr Kanazawa's research, in the journal Social Psychology Quarterly, also claims that intelligent people are less likely to believe in God or hold conservative views.

Analysing the American National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, he found young adults who regarded themselves as 'very liberal' had an average IQ of 106, while those who saw themselves as 'very conservative' had an average IQ of 95.

Dr Kanazawa's theory holds that self-interested, conservative attitudes are primitive in evolutionary terms, while selfless, liberal views are more advanced and linked with intelligence.

Similarly, those who identified themselves as 'not at all religious' had an average IQ of 103, while those who saw themselves as 'very religious' had an average IQ of 97.

According to Dr Kanazawa, that is down to people who are smarter being more open to new ideas.

Those who are less intelligent cling to belief in God, a relic of our evolutionary past, he added.

'Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid and they believe in God because they are paranoid.

'This innate bias towards paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers.

‘So, more intelligent children are likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God and they become atheists.'



SOURCE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254420/Men-cheat-wives-intelligent-faithful-husbands.html#ixzz2pSiGeuPN

Lol, You guys are funny. Thanks for visiting my thread. The most important thing to remember is that information comes in different lengths. If you are only ready to read stuff that is 2 sentences long, then that's cool. But remember, what you don't find interesting, someone else will.

Thank you, come again!

pheamy: I started masturbating when i was in secondary school in 2004, then i was a playboy in my area but it got to a point that i no longer derive any sexual pleasure with my girlfriends.
As a result of that, i started masturbating and at that time i enjoyed it than having real sex, this made me to leave all the girls i had then because personally, i believe it cost nothing, i do it anytime i want to and as many times i want to in a day.
However, it is affecting my relationship with my male because whenever we are in a public gathering in shcool, they always woo girls of their choice and the end of the day they'll ask me why i'm not talking wooing, my response to them is "the gal is not my choice", at first the excuse works but now they call me so many names that i can't start to type, some of them have stop coming to my house cos they think i'm a gay.
What started in 2004 as a joke has become part of my life today and i can masturbate up to six times daily, it has made me loose flair for ladies because i they don't look attractive to me. The last time i had sex with any lady was in August 2007 since then i've been masturbatin. I really want to stop but i don't know how.
I need your advice, mature advise only.

Hey pheamy, how are you doing?

I feel your pain. I think the first thing to do is to lose any guilt you may have over the matter. That is the most important thing you can do; don't feel guilty. You are not doing anything wrong. At all.

However, you have made a decision to quit masturbating as you have rightly identified that it is killing your desire for relationships with women.

My question to you as this point would be, how badly do you want to quit the habit (that's all it is, a habit)? If deep, deep down in your heart, you are ready to do almost anything to stop masturbating, then you're on the right track. Everyone will probably have their own method of abstaining from something. Me? I like to go extreme!

What’s your source of 'self-servicing' material? Magazines? A laptop/PC? TV? Your smart phone? All of the above?

Okay. If it's magazines, I’d throw them away. Burn them, rip them up, etc. That's the easiest one.

For any of the others though, that's when serious sacrifices must be made. There are various schools of thought that believe it takes anything from 28 days to 90 days to replace one habit with another. I believe 28 days is enough. So what you need to do at the very least is find a way to distance yourself from ALL pornographic material for just 28 days.

So if the material is on your laptop/PC, delete it asap. Do you have internet access at home? If you don't, then your job will be easier. If you do, you might have to ask yourself if you would be prepared to go without your computer for a month. Give it to a friend or remove an important component and ask someone to keep it for you for a month. Does that sound crazy? Good! 'Cos crazy actually works. Most people want to rely on their willpower because it's easier to do so than to do something over-the-top like what I'm prescribing, but willpower is a muscle - if you haven't exercised it in a while, then it's probably very very weak.

If the material is on TV/DVD, do the same thing; destroy or give away the offending CD/DVD's. And if it's your smartphone.....well, you already know what I'm gonna write - either get rid of your internet service for one month or swap phones with someone (or sell it!).

Don't forget that as you are doing this, don't take yourself too seriously. The actions must be severe, but your mind should be at ease. Remember: you are not trying to stop because it is wrong, you are stopping because you want to get back to having relationships. You are replacing one habit with another. So during your time of abstaining, don't stress yourself, or be hard on yourself if you stumble initially. It's nothing. Pray to God, thank him for giving you power over your thoughts and actions. Be confident! Our minds are too powerful. We can do whatever we want to do. I can say this with confidence because I know it to be the truth.

The only thing that stands between a person and their goal is what they are willing to sacrifice to get to their goal.

Once you've abstained for a month or longer, what you will have given yourself is bigger willpower muscles. You can then choose at that point what YOU want to do. As soon as you see that breaking habits is not a big deal, you'll feel confident enough to go to the next step.

Let me know how you get on. Take care!

I went through a really interesting thread on NL (why do ‘nice’ ladies get dumped easily) and it got me thinking; who are these ‘nice girls’ or ‘nice guys’? Why do they always get the short end of the stick? Are they underappreciated? Shouldn’t they be number one on everyone’s list?

Straight out the gate, let me just say that I have problems with this word, ‘nice.’ My dictionary defines it as:

1.) Amiably pleasant; kind
2.) Refined in manners, language, etc.
3.) Virtuous; respectable; decorous
4.) Carefully neat in dress, habits, etc.
5.) Having fastidious, finicky, or fussy tastes.

There are more definitions, but these are the ones that can be applied to people. So far, so good.

Interestingly, the origins of the word are far more exciting: ‘Nice’ was originally a word used to describe something “foolish, stupid or senseless”! This was in the 13th century. Then it was used to denote something “dainty or delicate”, then “precise or careful” and there were various stops along the way before it reached its final destination as the word we know today. Crazy, huh? Foolish, stupid or senseless: it kinda makes one think...

Anyway, words are only tags or signs – let’s deal with what we know the word to mean today. The Nice Person. “Oh, she’s so nice!!!”; “That was nice of you!”; “But, I’m a nice guy!!” And so on.

I know two nice people. One of them is generous to a fault; he will give the shirt off his back if necessary. I have never seen anyone give more to others than this guy. The other dude is the most polite person you’ll ever meet. He is thoughtful, always remembering the little things about people that make them smile. He is also very helpful and caring.

Are these two people just the same guy? Nope. The former is polite in formal settings (i.e., when meeting new friends, speaking to elders, that kind of stuff), but really doesn’t see the need to be as polite in his day-to-day informal life. He’s not that sensitive or empathetic. The latter might cook you a meal if you look like you haven’t eaten in days, or if he has enough food in his cupboard, but sharing out of his food directly is a NO-NO. He is not good at sharing his possessions and he’s rarely the type to be generous materially.

Are these two people ‘nice’ people? Yep? Oh, Nah? Possibly? It depends. On what? Or who?

Me. You. Them. Whomever has an opinion about them.

What am I getting at? Neither of these two is perfect – no one is. But if they are indeed nice people, what does that have to do with the price of dried fish?

When I read comments from men or women who call themselves ‘nice’ and wonder out aloud why “nice men finish last” or “men prefer the bad/crazy girls”, I wonder why these people think they should be the preferred choice. Obviously, ‘nice’ in this context (and in most contexts of this kind) is meant to have some sort of a moral undertone, i.e., Nice=Good=Right. But before we go questioning whether there should be an objectively (objective signifying ‘agreed by all’, like how nobody sees infanticide as ‘right’) ‘right’ way to pick partners, my question is, are these men or women ‘nice’ anyway? Are they partially nice, fully nice, objectively nice or subjectively nice? What makes the man who “would never hurt a woman”, who always seems to be cheated on or abandoned for the ‘village DMX’ even though he’s a ‘nice guy’, what makes his pity party justified?

Can a person be a thoroughly ‘nice person’ if they have one or two characteristics that fall under the jurisdiction of ‘nice’, but none of the others? If I don’t recognise a person as having any qualities that I, the writer, would consider as being ‘nice’, what happens then, can the person still be nice? Could that person be subjectively nice, nice to himself/herself and others, or could that person be objectively nice, but I’m just too ignorant to see it (maybe because I myself might not be a nice person)?

Let me get more specific:

‘Good girls like bad boys’

What makes these good girls ‘good’? Good grades? Because they don’t sleep with many boys, or they might even be virgins? Maybe they are always smiling? They don’t go out at night? They always say their prayers? They are polite people? Submissive? Shy? Quiet? They don’t gossip? They don’t flirt? They’ve never cheated? They always listen to their parents? They don’t wear revealing clothes? They don’t abuse others? They never lie? They respect the ‘golden rule’?

Do ‘good girls’ have all of these traits or some of these traits? Or is it even possible that a good girl can have none of these traits and still be good? What is so hot and desirable about being ‘good/nice’ anyway?

But let’s analyse further: should I, as a man, respect the ‘niceness’ or the ‘goodness’ of these traits because they are morally ‘right’ - these morals either coming from a religious viewpoint or a more personal place – or because am I attracted to these traits?

Are all good girls equal in value? Does that matter?

Let’s turn to the boys (Btw, I’ve got my sexist-alert hat on here; since ‘girls’ looks good to my eyes, I’m gonna stick with ‘boys’ for the males):
Who are these nice boys that finish last? Again, what traits do they have? They buy flowers? They never go’ Dutch’ on a meal or *horror!!!!*, have the girl pay for both meals? They vehemently refuse to ‘hit it’ on the first night/week/month/year? Born-again? They love hugs and poetry? They have good jobs, a mortgage, savings and a reliable pension plan? They consume literature (fiction and non-fiction) like us modern folk consume reality TV? They love mummy and daddy?

Should they finish first? Why? Do they even really finish last?

But, really – WHO ARE THEY?

Should good guys ally-up with the good girls? Shouldn’t both sets be fighting side by side for the sake of their adjective?

Actually, wait: this is complicated, because – as we are meant to believe – good boys like good girls, who like bad boys, who like good girls and bad girls, and the bad girls like bad boys but can’t stand good boys, who either haven’t thought of where they stand on the whole ‘liking bad girls’ thing, or have a mutual dislike for them.

Phew.

I’ve also come across the hackneyed sentence (uttered by males and females), “good girls are boring!”

“You need a wild girl, good girls are boring!”

“Good girls just lie there, they don’t even pull moves!”

“Good girls just smile like maalus, they will finish their MTN credit texting and buzzing you, and when they see you, the first thing they do is handcuff your arm to theirs and then it’s to pour saliva and lipstick over your face!”

These statements (not the last one – I made that up. I’m creative like that) make me laugh whenever I see or hear them. It is meant to be a standard, objective statement that males need acrobats in bed. Not all men, though: good males might favour missionary. But they’re boring too!

Another 'fact': good girls aren’t freaky in bed.

No sir.

No way, no how. Impossible!

Can’t you see that ‘freaky’ is as close to ‘good/nice’ as the north is to the south? Learner.

It’s at this point that I start to visualise all the problems with these words: ‘good’ and ‘bad’. ‘Nice’ and ‘bad’. There are numerous, numerous problems.

But here’s the poignant problem:

In a planet with over 7 billion people, we only seem to have two types of people; ‘nice’ and ‘not-nice’.

Really?

And don’t even get me started on the chameleon ones, the boys and girls that are ‘good’, oft-maligned and long-suffering with one person, and with another person, selfish, hypocritical and generally eager to do what they can’t stand others doing to them . That’s definitely going to have to be for another day.

Okay?
Nice.




A LAYMAN’s CONCLUSION: I’m almost too embarrassed to make this conclusion. It’s my pure opinion and as such, I feel naked sharing it. But here it is:

There are no ‘nice’ or ‘good’ people. Just people. Who have things you like about them. Most might only have a few things you like about them. A decent amount have many things to like about them. A few don’t have anything for you to like about them – these people are not bad people, they are just ‘people -who -don’t- have- anything –for- you- to- like- about -them’ people. And no matter what the annoyingly pessimistic people say, you will see (at some point in your life, if you are prepared to look in your heart and with your heart) that some people are FULL of the things you like, to the extent that even if they had a few teeny-weeny foul traits, those traits would only smell foul to others. Not to you (btw, I’m not talking about the ‘art’ (more like ‘fart’) of compromise. I won’t expand on this here, but I’m not talking about that). Maybe these ‘some people’ will only be one people. One person. Whatever, you get my point.


I should define ‘like’ ?

.....
.....
.....

“Bros, please hand me my cutlass.”


THE END.


NO INVERTED COMMAS WERE HARMED IN THE MAKING OF THIS ARTICLE.


What is A?