~~~Thoughts on Love~~~ {7}

I see traces of these primitive mating habits in human activity every day. Heterosexual men yearn to fornicate with nearly everything that walks on two legs and is bestowed with a vagina. The social phenomenon of being a so--called "pimp" is representative of the male's willingness to fornicate with as many women as he possibly can. This is not only scientifically proven; it is also known as a matter of common sense. Girls/women tend to put on this whole "you can look but you can't touch" aura, which is a method of weeding out beta males who are unwilling to "dominate" and "override" said aura (in common terms we refer to this as 'making a move'). Additionally, a girl's lack of promiscuity can be explained by her evolutionary need to pursue one boy who, in her eyes, is the most powerful male she can get her hands on. Today, the so--called "power" women seek to find in men is not limited to physical dominance. Women are attracted to high social standing, which explains why plenty of young girls hunger to settle down with established, rich old men. A 70-year-old millionaire can make a girl feel more protected than a 19-year-old stud such as a boy because financial stability is a fundamental ingredient of success in today's world. Traces of primitive sexuality lie within us all. Sure, some have the ability to completely control their primordial desires and remain loyal to one partner (which society views in a positive light), but these people are merely putting a cap on their instinctual wants. Although dormant, their primitive desires are still present. And this is only a small fraction of the population I refer to--most are prone to give in to the need to spread the seed. It seems as if society has struggled to release itself from the grasps of sexual primitivism. This explains, for example, why most consider sex, Or at least promiscuity, to be taboo. So there is clearly a socially constructed force acting to counter primitive instinct. A prime example is "Love". It is important for couples to "emotionally connect" at to fulfill each other romantically. This does not deny that sexual fulfillment it is also integral to the health of any relationship. From what I can tell, a variety of couples have differing standards of what is required to remantically and sexually fulfill each other. Some primarily value love while others prefer to spend the majority of their relationships embracing primal instincts. Most balance the two. So what if a girl feels, for whatever reason, that she is in love with a boy who lacks dominance? Then we've got problems. A girl finds herself craving this boy because, say, she emotionally connects with him. Despite her adoration for this boy, however, she will be unwilling, almost unable to give herself up to him. Until the boy decides to 'man up", there is very little chance that she will ever be intimate with him. I explained this theory to a girl (space) friend who is very close to me. I was previously romantically involved with her. Her response to my theory went as follow: "Well, I never felt like you protected me, although I still wanted you. Doesn't that prove your theory wrong"? I can see where the statement is coming from.