Posted by Ritmo on March 06, 2001 at 18:00:22:
In Reply to: 3 Major disagreements. posted by RickFeliz on March 06, 2001 at 15:20:45:
|
you changin' all the definitions Brother Horndogg and others (including ya Brother Ritmo)are talkin' about. 1 in 20 to 1 in 100, if we're talkin' about long-term monogamous relationships?!?! I doubt that hardcore, my brother! Bro HDogg ain't talkin' about ya thang of 'I see the chica in the zona, we hang out and have a good time, but it's understood that there's no long-term monogamomous commitment'--he's talkin' about 'bein' in love,' rescuin' chicas, etc. There's just no way that 1 in 100 encounters between lover boy mongers and their chica faves are gonna result in long-term relationship. If anybody's talkin' about your thang instead, then yeah, maybe I'd ratchet the 1 in a zillion down a few notches--fact, my MO down there ain't all that different than some of what you say from time to time, that is, tryin' to establish a friendship based on an exchange that carries good thangs for both parties (although I wouldn't dream of some of the extracurricular stuff you be doin', just 'cause I ain't interested in spendin' a bunch of time outside the zona with them chicas, or wit' ANY woman--frankly, I'm all into 'em for a little while, but after about an hour or so of havin' ta listen to 'em yak, and just about all of 'em, including zona chicas, will definitely yak, I just want 'em to leave me the fuck alone). As for mongers havin' their shit together, nobody said they have lives of chaos, can't pay their bills, etc. I'm talkin' about their willingness and ability to do the relationship thang in the way that the society in which they live demands them to do it. They DO tend, in my experience, to be monogamy-challenged in comparison to lots of other guys I know. Pullin' in data from other cultures don't change the facts that, in THIS culture, guys who are untameable in the monogamy department are defined as a social problem, and psychologically abnormal--we're too 'natural,' not submissive enough to the cultural imperatives that demand us to be monogamous, responsible, etc. I don't put no personal moral charge on none a that ('fucked up' in my 'hood means a lotta thangs!)--personally, I don't see nothin' wrong wit' being incapable of and uninterested in (at least serial) monogamy, but in most Western societies, that's the standard of evaluation, even when you include the Latin countries that deviate slightly from this (but still have marriage as the norm). And...frankly, bro, when dudes talk to me about wantin' to be the 1 in a zillion who sweeps the AB hottie off her heels, turns her into a good girl (or good enough at least to stop puta-izing), and lives happily ever after wit' her (and her five kids, and her momma, and her twelve sibs), that don't have much to do with reality. You can call it 'fantasy,' or 'illusion,' or 'drunken optimism,' or lotsa stuff, but ta me, it's like a dude that wanna walk on water and say "But Christ did it!"--maybe da brother did, maybe he didn't, but every muthafucka I seen try it wound up in the drink... Don't fool yaself, brother--you don't have no harem. A harem is a group of concubines/servant girls over which you have total control, you keep 'em in ya palace, they do whatever da fuck you want 'em ta do, and gladly 'cause they think you the next best thang ta God. And other pashas ain't comin' in on the hour to fuck ya harem girls if it's a harem. I GUARANTEE other pashas is fuckin' the chicas you think in ya harem--might even be Pasha Ritmo doin' it! Oh, and the pasha don't pay ta play. Not that you cain't be havin' a good time doin' what ya doin'--not sayin' that at all, my brother, 'cause I KNOW I'm havin' a good time and I cain't be the only one. But in the real, sayin' you got a harem is just an incorrect and unrealistic definition of the situation. |
|