Dating a woman who has slept around....

[katiegrl]

I've heard said that one of the last things a woman will say before a first nighter is "I don't normally do this" However, in your case that is the truth, so if I were the guy involved I would find it hugely flattering that you fancied me that much! However, if it were the 30th time you had done that... it doesn't have the same impact, does it?

 

OMG, that is EXACTLY what my boyfriend thought....and STILL thinks to this day. He never ONCE judged me for it...except in a good way!

 

In fact he teases me about it all the time....how I was so crazy about him....that I couldn't resist him and went against every moral fiber of my being to have him!

 

He can be rather cocky sometimes....which is okay by me!

 

So can I....

[Kofybean]

When I bump into guys my missus has slept with in the past it's me giving them the smug look!

They had their shot, they blew it! She left them come sunrise, she married me! Jokes on them!

 

You hustlin backwards.

[katiegrl]

>>>"I don't normally do this"

 

 

enigma, what's interesting is that, in my particular case, even though I TRULY did not normally "do that" (have sex with guy the first night)....those words did NOT come out of my mouth.

 

 

It never even occurred to me say those words.... even now while reading them, saying those words is totally foreign to me....and could never even imagine saying them....

 

 

As I think you're right... it's almost like that saying "doth protest too much." If you REALLY TRULY don't normally "do that"...then you don't need to announce it.... he'll be able to tell....no need to say a word.

[katiegrl]

I agree 100%. I actually slept with my current GF on the first date. Granted, we had known one another prior to our actual date, and we talked about dating for months before we actually got the chance to do it. If she was the type of girl that did that sort of thing often, I would not have been interested in her.

 

I'm glad you found someone decent. That can be tough these days.

 

Thanks my friend, and right back at ya!

[mrldii]

In each of my successful LTRs, I have "slept with" the men early on. It's almost a prerequisite with me...I'm not falling for a guy, 'til I know what I'm working with...AND 'til I know he knows what he's doing.

 

It's a goose/gander thingy with me, yanno?

 

Again and still, not a single one of 'em has had a problem with it...because - after all - for me to be having sex "early on", so were each of them.

 

 

 

Guess I'm just attracted to a more evolved kind of guy. Works for me, so it's alllllll good. And, the ones who would be offended by such a thing...

 

 

...wouldn't be there to begin with, now would they?

[kilgore]

In each of my successful LTRs, I have "slept with" the men early on. It's almost a prerequisite with me...I'm not falling for a guy, 'til I know what I'm working with...AND 'til I know he knows what he's doing.

 

It's a goose/gander thingy with me, yanno?

 

Again and still, not a single one of 'em has had a problem with it...because - after all - for me to be having sex "early on", so were each of them.

 

 

 

Guess I'm just attracted to a more evolved kind of guy. Works for me, so it's alllllll good. And, the ones who would be offended by such a thing...

 

 

...wouldn't be there to begin with, now would they?

 

Why would anyone have a problem with that??

[Heer]

Hi, I feel that the most important thing is if the guy/girl really likes the guy/girl. It really doesn't matter if the woman has slept around. What matters is if the guy likes the girl or not. If you like the girl, you should be able to look past that and accept that, just if the guy was a player. Its not really fair to give girls/ guys a "quota" system on sexual partners:mad:

[Justanaverageguy]

99.99% of humanity shares very similar views on sex and sexuality. Just like food, the spices may change the flavor, but beef is beef. Don't focus on the minor differences and instead look at the overall biological imperatives at work. You seem to think that lions chase gazelles because they were not taught to eat grass like a proper animal. If you take that approach to people you will never understand why we do the things we do.

 

 

[/Quote]

 

Yeah they do ... as in they like and enjoy doing it immensely with variety of different people. People have a very weird idea that humans are instinctually monogamous for life. We really aren't and the stats prove that. Humans tend to want a variety of partners over the course of their life but will often settle down for periods being monogamous with one or more mates to raise children. The forced ideology of marriage for life is now dissapearing and you are seeing the results played out. Statistics show that with increased sexual freedoms a new tend is emerging. People tend to have numerous long term relationships and play around with some short term ones in between. The real results of this probably wont be seen for a number of years when the actual forced ideal of "marriage forever" I think will basically be gone. At the moment it is still kicking through Hollywood brainwashing and women wanting their big day. But the trend is already showing that marriage for life is an anomaly. People no longer feel pressured to try and make it work for 10 years of unhappiness together. Imagine what it will be like in 100 years ? Divorce is already becoming normal and its not because society is falling apart. It's because society is becoming more free and had previously been trying to force an instinctually square peg in a round hole for a couple of thousand years with very limited success.

 

Instinct says in general we are not monogomous for life and we are not people who want to have constant one night stands. We are somewhere in the middle with extremes at both poles. So simply put we are not a lion but we are not vegan either. We are an omnivore. We like Beef ..... but we also like chips and salad on the side

 

 

Two points you say that are of interest. The first is that YES the vast majority of men in ancient societies were emotionally disturbed. In fact you had entire cultures where every single man suffered some form of PTSD. I don't think you fully comprehend how violent and connected to death people were in the past. Death was a constant and in your face companion, as were ultra violent people. Additionally, alcohol and drugs were much more common place among men of ancient times. It was not uncommon for the average medieval peasant to be drunk by noon every single day, because beer was the safest liquid to drink.

[/Quote]

 

Like I said we are evolving .... but my friend if you think promiscuity has gone down as our cultural and societal intelligence has gone up your mistaken. Go on tinder or look at the Ashleigh Maddison scandle and see. Did they all have PTSD ? Like I said in my analogy above ... we are omnivores. Some humans go vegan by choice some love to eat a lot of meat. Most people are in the middle and eat varying degrees of both.

 

The second point is that you don't seem to understand how biology works. You must actually have babies in order to effect the next generation. Western Europe does not have babies. They are the Dodo Birds. They do not have a future genetically.

 

All the egalitarianism of Western Culture is great, but it requires capitalism and wealth. Without those two things it's just Soviet era propaganda and bull$hit.

 

Hey believe me I'm not advocating capitalism and I think that ideology is in its death throws but what you have started to see in the west will move to the rest of the world make absolutely no mistake about it. That's the future .... a stabilized birth rate across the globe. Why .... because now that is an advantage to our survival. Breeding is only an advantage to a point. You think a steady birth rate indicates dodo .... I think the exact opposite. Those countries that are massively overpopulated and with birth rates through the roof .... they are the dodo waiting to happen. What happens when there is a food and resource shortage / disease epidemic / natural disasters etc etc. Massive over population does not equal survival my friend. Like I said the rules change - what was once an advantage becomes a weakness. Evolution is about adapting to suit your environment.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Justanaverageguy

[BluEyeL]

Be who you are but just accept the fact that not every man will be into it. You probably don't want these men anyway so why do women care so much about their opinions?

Right. That's what I'm saying. I don't see much of a point in fighting and not accepting the truth. The reality is that most or many men will judge a woman who sleeps around.

 

Is it fair ? No, but it's the reality. I'm always for accepting the reality and doing something about fitting in your own goals rather than complaining about things you can't change.

 

On the other hand, it's good to talk about unfairness, that's how things evolve and change . I personally am not a militant and I prefer to do what helps me get what I want than waste my time in protests .

 

 

I admit that a small part of the reason I don't sleep around and never sleep with men early on is because I knew this could bite me in the arse later on. A few minutes of "fun"'are not worth it imho Casual sex is often not even satisfying.

[SawtoothMars]

Hi, I feel that the most important thing is if the guy/girl really likes the guy/girl. It really doesn't matter if the woman has slept around. What matters is if the guy likes the girl or not. If you like the girl, you should be able to look past that and accept that, just if the guy was a player. Its not really fair to give girls/ guys a "quota" system on sexual partners:mad:

 

The real world typically works the opposite. The more a guy cares about a particular woman the more this matters to him. I have seen it just tear some younger men apart.

 

I also don't think this is about the number itself. It's much deeper.

[deadelvis]

Last night I was talking with my "formerly promiscuous" girlfriend about sex and she was describing some of the sexual acts her female friends have participated in. She mentioned one night several years ago when two of her female friends set up a gangbang with 5 guys they found on the internet. She ended the story by saying "I was really disappointed they didn't invite me, that would have been a really fun thing to participate in" When I balked at this comment she threw the "double standard" in my face and said "Oh so it's wrong for me to want to have sex with 5 guys at once? Wouldn't you have been more than happy to have sex with 5 women at the same time?" While there is a certain truth to this, I can't reconcile the two scenarios. Yes, of course when I was single I would have been happy to have sex with 5 women at the same time. But even if it's a double standard I can't see the two scenarios as even remotely similar. I think pretty much any single guy would take the opportunity to have sex with 5 women at once, but I can't think of any girl (okay, actually I can think of a couple girls who have major daddy issues) who would want to have sex with 5 guys at once. And I think most people of either gender would view the guy with 5 women as being "lucky" while the woman with 5 men as being a *****.

 

Is it a double standard? Sure. But what is normal? If you asked a single guy

"Hey we're going to line up 20 hot women and you are going to have sex with them all, in a row, how do you feel about that?" Most people of either gender would consider him a fool to turn down the opportunity, however if I woman was interested in taking on 20 guys in a row, the vast majority of people would see her as being "immoral" or having "issues".

 

When my girlfriend laments over her missed "gangbang opportunities" it's difficult for me not to think she has something severely wrong with her.

 

When does a double standard become "the standard" for judging a persons moral fiber? While intellectually I realize it's not fair to judge her for wanting to have sex with 5 guys at once... emotionally and intuitively I find myself thinking "WTF is wrong with her?"

Edited August 27, 2015 by deadelvis

[SawtoothMars]

Yeah they do ... as in they like and enjoy doing it immensely with variety of different people. People have a very weird idea that humans are instinctually monogamous for life. We really aren't and the stats prove that.

 

But the trend is already showing that marriage for life is an anomaly. People no longer feel pressured to try and make it work for 10 years of unhappiness together. Imagine what it will be like in 100 years ? Divorce is already becoming normal and its not because society is falling apart. It's because society is becoming more free and had previously been trying to force an instinctually square peg in a round hole for a couple of thousand years with very limited success.

 

You have this knack for only seeing half the the answer. Yes, absolutely humans desire multiple partners and always have. That does not mean that we want the people who we are with to do the same! The vast majority of humans would like to be able to cheat on their spouse, but do not want to be cheated on by their spouse. This is a very selfish instinct.

 

In regards to marriage. It is just an economic pact designed for raising children and creating alliances between families. I think marriage still has a lot to offer society.

 

Like I said we are evolving .... but my friend if you think promiscuity has gone down as our cultural and societal intelligence has gone up your mistaken. Go on tinder or look at the Ashleigh Maddison scandle and see. Did they all have PTSD ? Like I said in my analogy above ... we are omnivores. Some humans go vegan by choice some love to eat a lot of meat. Most people are in the middle and eat varying degrees of both.

 

WE are not evolving. The environment in which we live is changing. Do you understand genetics and evolution? Genetic drift occurs over huge swaths of time, and the larger your population the slower that change occurs.

 

Hey believe me I'm not advocating capitalism and I think that ideology is in its death throws but what you have started to see in the west will move to the rest of the world make absolutely no mistake about it. That's the future .... a stabilized birth rate across the globe. Why .... because now that is an advantage to our survival. Breeding is only an advantage to a point. You think a steady birth rate indicates dodo .... I think the exact opposite. Those countries that are massively overpopulated and with birth rates through the roof .... they are the dodo waiting to happen. What happens when there is a food and resource shortage / disease epidemic / natural disasters etc etc. Massive over population does not equal survival my friend. Like I said the rules change - what was once an advantage becomes a weakness. Evolution is about adapting to suit your environment.

 

What happens? They migrate in DROVES to places like Europe where they have free food and free medicine. I think the Girl Scouts could conquer Western Europe... imagine what happens when Nigeria comes armed with modern weapons and 1 billion soldiers all racist as hell. Look down the road. They will industrialize. They will have weapons. They will need resources.

 

You are foolishly thinking that quality of life holds some measure of evolutionary meaning. It doesn't. The only thing that matters is that you pass your genes onto the next generation in as large a quantity as possible.

[SawtoothMars]

Last night I was talking with my "formerly promiscuous" girlfriend about sex and she was describing some of the sexual acts her female friends have participated in. She mentioned one night several years ago when two of her female friends set up a gangbang with 5 guys they found on the internet. She ended the story by saying "I was really disappointed they didn't invite me, that would have been a really fun thing to participate in" When I balked at this comment she threw the "double standard" in my face and said "Oh so it's wrong for me to want to have sex with 5 guys at once? Wouldn't you have been more than happy to have sex with 5 women at the same time?" While there is a certain truth to this, I can't reconcile the two scenarios. Yes, of course when I was single I would have been happy to have sex with 5 women at the same time. But even if it's a double standard I can't see the two scenarios as even remotely similar. I think pretty much any single guy would take the opportunity to have sex with 5 women at once, but I can't think of any girl (okay, actually I can think of a couple girls who have major daddy issues) who would want to have sex with 5 guys at once. And I think most people of either gender would view the guy with 5 women as being "lucky" while the woman with 5 men as being a *****.

 

Is it a double standard? Sure. But what is normal? If you asked a single guy

 

When my girlfriend laments over her missed "gangbang opportunities" it's difficult for me not to think she has something severely wrong with her

 

5 women at once? You only have one dick. Your GF has lots of orifices... but 5 guys? Armpit banging just doesn't sound hot.

 

I think people just need to admit that sex is different for men and women, and thus this isn't really a double standard.

[deadelvis]

I think people just need to admit that sex is different for men and women, and thus this isn't really a double standard.

 

I'm starting to agree with that statement. A guy who had sex with 5 girls at once will never face the same type of judgement as a woman who had sex with 5 men at once.

 

And I'm not even sure if that double standard is unfair or realistic and well deserved. When you are a hot woman, getting 5 guys to pull a train on you is as easy as ordering a pizza. For a guy to get into a situation where he's having sex with 5 attractive women at once is nearly impossible.

 

Should a woman be seen as "lucky" for doing to something which is always available to her? And should a man be seen as "disgusting" for doing the same thing when achieving it is nearly impossible?

[autumnnight]

Man....I am soooo sheltered....even at sort of almost 50......

 

FIVE??

 

Oy vey!

 

I think I'll just stick with my little dream of one good man....

[Imajerk17]

I have been sort of following this thread. As much as I'd like to be able to tell my female friends that any guy who has any negative opinion on a woman's sexual past is a total jackass, I can't do that. I can't go that far.

 

Thing is, there will always be "double standards" of sorts. For one thing, guys accept early on that the heavier lifting in the early steps of the Mating Dance are done by them. Those guys that don't, write threads on here and are told to "stop whining". This is a double standard too you know.

 

While I don't think name-calling is really justified, I think everyone is entitled to their preferences when it comes to picking a partner. And yeah, I do think women are judged more for their sexual past than men are. A double standard indeed, just as the expectation that men don't cry and men do the heavier lifting in the earlier stages of courtship is a double standard. That said, I know plenty of *women* who are grossed out by men w high numbers of partners.

 

I don't care so much about a partner's number per se, but one of the things that does make sex w someone so awesome is that she had sex w me because she really felt the attraction or because I am finally winning her over. The implicit compliment that I made her feel amazing by my courtship efforts. If I found out that she hooked up too easily in the *recent* past, that definitely would take away from that. I'd wonder how attracted she really was to *me*.

 

Finally yes, there is that fact that a woman always knows that the baby she is carrying is hers while the man does not. So the biological imperative is there behind that double standard, that women are expected to have sexual willpower while men are not. Just as there is a biological imperative behind the expectation that men are the ones who pursue.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Imajerk17

[edgygirl]

I couldn't care less what people did in bed before they met me.

 

How many people they slept with doesn't tell me anything about their personality.

Edited August 27, 2015 by edgygirl

[phineas]

I couldn't care less what people did in bed before they met me.

 

How many people they slept with doesn't tell me anything about their personality.

 

Yep.

i'm 43.

I WANT a woman with a history.

I WANT a freak in the sheets or the kitchen or where ever.

 

I'm tired of meeting women my own age that are just BAD in bed.

[road]

I have been sort of following this thread. As much as I'd like to be able to tell my female friends that any guy who has any negative opinion on a woman's sexual past is a total jackass, I can't do that. I can't go that far.

 

Thing is, there will always be "double standards" of sorts. For one thing, guys accept early on that the heavier lifting in the early steps of the Mating Dance are done by them. Those guys that don't, write threads on here and are told to "stop whining". This is a double standard too you know.

 

While I don't think name-calling is really justified, I think everyone is entitled to their preferences when it comes to picking a partner. And yeah, I do think women are judged more for their sexual past than men are. A double standard indeed, just as the expectation that men don't cry and men do the heavier lifting in the earlier stages of courtship is a double standard. That said, I know plenty of *women* who are grossed out by men w high numbers of partners.

 

I don't care so much about a partner's number per se, but one of the things that does make sex w someone so awesome is that she had sex w me because she really felt the attraction or because I am finally winning her over. The implicit compliment that I made her feel amazing by my courtship efforts. If I found out that she hooked up too easily in the *recent* past, that definitely would take away from that. I'd wonder how attracted she really was to *me*.

 

Finally yes, there is that fact that a woman always knows that the baby she is carrying is hers while the man does not. So the biological imperative is there behind that double standard, that women are expected to have sexual willpower while men are not. Just as there is a biological imperative behind the expectation that men are the ones who pursue.

 

 

 

 

Yes men do not want or expect women to cover the cost of dating her unless they are super cheap. Just as Ug would bring home the fresh Brontosaurus Steaks to the woman at the cave that he wanted to court.

 

Men want to pay for the dates because it continues to send the traditional message that I value this woman and am willing to provide for her to have her company. The Feminazi's can pretend that there is no reason for gender roles. Though fact is evolution and history has shown good reason for gender roles to exist. Yes there will always be exceptions. Exceptions are not the norm or average.

 

But Ug's moma did not raise no fool. Lesson is that he needs a woman that will place a high value on herself and have the control not give her goodies just to anyone.

 

 

For a man needs a mate that will be faithful and not bear any OC during their marriage. Thus a woman's number is the measure of her past behavior. Past behavior is an indication of future behavior.

 

Ug does not want to waste his Brontosaurus Steaks. Who can blame him.

 

Men and women are different. Unfortunately the Feminazi's have brainwashed too many women that equal rights under the law is the same as being equal.

[BlackOpsZombieGirl]

Man....I am soooo sheltered....even at sort of almost 50......

 

FIVE??

 

Oy vey!

 

I think I'll just stick with my little dream of one good man....

 

I agree with this sentiment 110%. Just give me ONE decent (character-wise), good-looking, gentle and sexually adept guy...:love: I want to focus all of my sexual attraction, chemistry and adoration on only ONE man! Not only do I think it's gross (and DISGUSTING) to be having sex with FIVE guys at once (or in a row), but it's absolutely ridiculous! How could anyone possibly be able to enjoy that kind of experience with all of that confusion? How could any woman focus any of her attention on any of them - if even only for a few seconds?!? Which guy would she focus on without leaving any of the other ones out of the equation?!? Just the mere thought of even imagining having to deal with more than one penis poking at me makes me nauseous...eww!!!

 

To each her own. But for me, I only desire having ONE guy sexually at a time...and ONLY one guy. I've been this way from day one, and I'm going to remain this way.

 

 

 

.

[edgygirl]

That's okay.

 

No interest in prude men. Sorry. I'm not like that so I don't want my partner to be either.

 

If he gets filtered because of his own choices in life, that's on him.

 

:lmao:

 

No interest in a promiscuous woman. Sorry. I'm not like that so I don't want my partner to be either.

 

 

If she gets filtered because of her own choices in life, that's on her.

 

 

You ladies get the same answer men get when discussing who pays. The too bad it is what it is answer.

[edgygirl]

Hey Maleficent - just wanted to point out about Judaism...

 

I'm Jewish and in our culture the idea is - the more sex, the merrier. We are not supposed to feel guilty about sex in general, at all, as I think is the case in, say, Christianity or Catholicism.

 

Of course, it's still about lots of sex but in a monogamist marriage.

 

Prehistoric men worshipped fertility goddesses. I really don't think this comes from prehistoric cultures. I tend to think this started happening with the big religions (judaism, christianity and islam)

 

Even pagan religions used by more primitive societies used sexual rituals.

[Maleficent]

Hey Maleficent - just wanted to point out about Judaism...

 

I'm Jewish and in our culture the idea is - the more sex, the merrier. We are not supposed to feel guilty about sex in general, at all, as I think is the case in, say, Christianity or Catholicism.

 

Of course, it's still about lots of sex but in a monogamist marriage.

 

That's the point though. Religions shame sex outside of wedlock (except christianity. They shame sex regardless lol)

 

My point was that the whole notion that a woman should have sex with the least amount of people possible otherwise she is dirty comes from the religious notion of the virgin bride...

[Justanaverageguy]

You have this knack for only seeing half the the answer. Yes, absolutely humans desire multiple partners and always have. That does not mean that we want the people who we are with to do the same! The vast majority of humans would like to be able to cheat on their spouse, but do not want to be cheated on by their spouse. This is a very selfish instinct. In regards to marriage. It is just an economic pact designed for raising children and creating alliances between families. I think marriage still has a lot to offer society.

 

[/Quote]

 

Possibly I am coming at this a little one sided - but so are you. I actually agree with your point. People do tend to be selfish and want to have rules for themselves and different one for others. Its logical no one wants to be cheated on. I admit you are right there. But that is part of the reason the existing dynamic of it being ok for men to sleep around a bit before marriage (and even kind of encouraged) existed whilst the opposite was true for women.

 

I'm not saying men won't still want women to have a limited number of sexual partners before marriage - I'm saying that the power has shifted so good luck enforcing that idea. Women had to be celibate and good girls who saved their "flower" for a special man previously because men had all the power and were selfish. They actually created laws punishable by death to enforce it Plus women had no work rights and there for no safety or security without men. They originally belonged to their father who wanted the most money or power from the marriage arrangement. Marriage and women's sexual habits were completely designed by men's selfishness Plus on top of all that you also had biology. Women couldn't prevent getting pregnant easily so you didn't want to have a baby with the guy who was hot .... but didn't have a lot of money to support you

 

All of the above is gone. All of it. Women are now able to work and support themselves, they don't get treated as mens property, no laws prevent them sleeping around and we have created ways to prevent pregnancy. There is an adjustment in sexual behaviors happening now but social ideas are still adjusting as well. The whole "value" proposition is in the process of being changed and if anything now the advantage and power has moved to be maybe with women. Because they have always kind of had the power when it came to sexual desire and they can always get laid. If you're a beautiful women these days ..... you can be selfish and do what ever you want. Look at young beautiful women, look at models, look at celebrities ? Most women would cut off an arm to marry Brad Pitt .... do you think he asked Angelina Jolie how many men she had slept with People don't think badly of her .... but they expect she has slept with a lot of men because she is beautiful and successful and seriously .... no guy would give a damn not even one who can pick pretty much any woman he wants to marry.

 

"High value" women can now do what they want. If you want to obtain a high value woman you will have to deal with that fact. Of course what people consider to be "high value" is personal and subjective. So if you value sexual restraint .... thats fine but be aware good looking successful women who save themselves for marriage and want to stay at home and cook are going to start being in short supply so you better be a damn high value man who can attract one if that's what you expect in the 21st century.

 

 

WE are not evolving. The environment in which we live is changing. Do you understand genetics and evolution? Genetic drift occurs over huge swaths of time, and the larger your population the slower that change occurs.

 

I'll admit my views differ slightly from what popular science believes right now so I completely expect you to disagree and say I don't know what I am talking about which is fine. Like I said earlier .... science hypothesises evolution is a line with a very slow gradient going up steady over time. Genetic changes taking millions of years. But there is this this weird thing were there is very little evidence to support that with humans. If so we would find fossil evidence of steady changes in primates gradually moving towards humanoid form - but that simply doesn't exist. There are huge gaps lasting tens of millions of years with no record showing that gradual progression. We just magically seemed to jump - from one form to another. Like I said I believe its not a gradient its a exponential curve where huge changes happen rapidly. Based on the way the curve is headed the next 100 years will be interesting so proof is in the pudding I guess.

 

 

What happens? They migrate in DROVES to places like Europe where they have free food and free medicine. I think the Girl Scouts could conquer Western Europe... imagine what happens when Nigeria comes armed with modern weapons and 1 billion soldiers all racist as hell. Look down the road. They will industrialize. They will have weapons. They will need resources.

 

You are foolishly thinking that quality of life holds some measure of evolutionary meaning. It doesn't. The only thing that matters is that you pass your genes onto the next generation in as large a quantity as possible.

 

Some of this will definitely happen. You see it in the states now with Mexican immigration but I really don't think in low developed countries with huge populations that will happen in mass. Its not the class of living that matters its the money, power and weapons technology and the ability to prevent mass influx when the **** hits the fan with resources. Thats going to happen this sooner rather then later. Likely this century and Africa will be in no position to do anything about it.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Justanaverageguy

[Pull n Pray]

I think the exact opposite. Those countries that are massively overpopulated and with birth rates through the roof .... they are the dodo waiting to happen. What happens when there is a food and resource shortage / disease epidemic / natural disasters etc etc. Massive over population does not equal survival my friend. Like I said the rules change - what was once an advantage becomes a weakness. Evolution is about adapting to suit your environment.

 

Your logic is akin to the "nobody goes there anymore because it is too crowded" Yogi Berra joke. Yes, excessive population growth can be a threat to a standard of living, and resource shortages can curb populations in a painful way. But a high population growth in a species is not a sign that it is a "dodo waiting to happen." Just the opposite.