Atomic Pup - Ghosts of Hook-ups Past

I can’t meet women at bars. I’m just not assertive enough and I don’t really care for the club atmosphere. I can’t find my way through the cloud of bullshit and hormones and say what’s on my mind: “Wanna fuck?”

It just seems so forced and expected.

Nah, my hunting grounds are locations where actual conversations have to take place - coffee shops, grocery stores, and the like. That’s when my primal side comes out and I start to enjoy the thrill of the hunt.

When I spy a girl sitting alone reading a book in the cafe, I start salivating and feel like a cheetah who’s preparing to take down a gazelle - a gazelle with a round ass and really nice perky tits.

But I have a new problem. Her name is Alice.

It’s kind of like that Mitch Hedberg joke:

“I don’t have a girlfriend. I just know a girl that’d get really upset if she heard me say that.”

It’s a different thing for me, this relationship thing. I’m supposed to express my feelings. I’m supposed to say “you’re all I need.”

But it’s all bullshit.

My hormones flare up and instinct takes over every time a nice girl with a slight anterior pelvic tilt walks by.

Bears and lions bury their kills and come back for more meat later when hunger strikes or when they’re done watching the Price is Right.

Me? I do something similar.

The only difference is that my kills come after me. Yep, The Ghosts of Hook-ups Past continue to haunt me. They catch me at vulnerable times - when I’m waiting for my coffee, about to rent a movie, eating a sandwich, washing my hair, standing around not doing anything - and they’re always wearing some new halter top and low-cut jeans.

Last night, this girl I’ve been flirting with for the last few weeks caught me before I headed out the door of the cafe to my girlfriend’s house to watch a movie.

“What are you doing tomorrow?”

“Uh, nothing.”

“Well, what are you doing tonight?”

“Watching a movie with my family.”

Oh, what an odious half-truth! What a vile lie!

“Do you have a girlfriend?”


Now, you have to understand my girlfriend is hot. She’s sexy. She works out and dresses well. She’s what my friend would call “a lady in the street and the freak in the bed.”

So why is it so damn hard for me to be faithful? Should I even concentrate on being faithful right now?

Those are the kinds of tricks my brain pulls on me.

I can rationalize anything. I always think I’m being philosophical when really I’m just thinking with my penis.

Maybe I should take comedian Joe Rogan’s advice:

“Jerk off first. Then think about it.”

Have I lost my fucking mind?

Psychology Today doesn’t seem to think so.

In their article “Ten Politically Incorrect Truths about Human Nature” authors Alan S. Miller Ph.D., Satoshi Kanazawa Ph.D. have this to say:

[i]"The history of western civilization aside, humans are naturally polygamous…Relative to monogamy, polygyny (one husband, many wives) creates greater fitness variance (the distance between the “winners” and the “losers” in the reproductive game) among males than among females because it allows a few males to monopolize all the females in the group.

The greater fitness variance among males creates greater pressure for men to compete with each other for mates. Only big and tall males can win mating opportunities.

Among pair-bonding species like humans, in which males and females stay together to raise their children, females also prefer to mate with big and tall males because they can provide better physical protection against predators and other males."[/i]

Hell yes!

I think us guys here at Testosterone should use this to our advantage. A guy who deadlifts gets more pussy than the guy who doesn’t!

As George Bernard Shaw put it, “The maternal instinct leads a woman to prefer a tenth share in a first-rate man to the exclusive possession of a third-rate one.”

Well, I’m not sure if I’m a “first-rate man”, but I’m still going to tape that quote to my girlfriend’s refrigerator.

Another interesting read on T-Nation today. I believe that as visually stimulated creatures us males have to fight this for life unless you happen to live a Hugh Heffner lifestyle and can have it all.

Where as I believe a female becomes more emotionally attached to a mate (all them feelings) a guy can have a deep love and respect for his women, but unless the last drop of T has oozed out of his system he’s always going to be turned on by seeing curves in all the right places.

We have an instinctive urge to spread the seed and again, it doesn’t leave unless one gets gelded by life or the knife. If the friendship is strong enough more of that urge leaves however, and more happiness from a strong bond occurs.


  1. Meet girl
  2. Get to know girl, if you like girl and things lead to sex BEFORE you have sex tell girl you really, really, really like her and you want to have a sexual relationship with her, but you’re not interested in being monogamous and you don’t expect her to be monogamous either
  3. If girl says ‘fine’…no lying, no cheating…just be honest with her and tell her you expect honesty from her
  4. Meet next girl
  5. Repeat steps 2-3
  6. Repeat step 4


My name is Nate Dogg.

I like to eat pussy.

Hi Nate Dogg.

So Nate… did you hit it?

The point is to see her often enough that the jeans actually get so low and the halter so small that there is literally nothing left of it. Walah!

Nice read. Off to the gym.

nice post, kinda what happened in my post “Glitter and Cheating”

I was talking to a guy that comes into my gym about my situation. No matter how hot the girl i’m with is, I always want something else, my current girlfriend could easily grace the pages of playboy, but i have the urge to fuck commmon club trash. He says to me “behind every hot girl, is a guy dying to get rid of her” and its the truth.

And one of my sgt’s in the marines who had a incredibly hot wife told me, “you know man, i eat steak all the time, sometimes I just want some fucking meatloaf”

A lady in the street but a freak in the sheets*

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

There is a psychological experiment that has been repeated quite a few times, generally on college campuses. My books on this sort of thing are all boxed up in storage somewhere, so I�??m paraphrasing and the numbers aren�??t exact. The point of the study was to determine gender-based attitudes towards casual sex.

A subject would approach a person of the opposite sex and immediately ask them if they would like to have sex with them. Of the male population asked, something like forty percent said yes. How many of the women said yes? None.

From an evolutionary perspective, what are the potential costs to a man of a casual sex encounter? A couple minutes of his time and of course the risk that some other caveman might get jealous and try to club him. Other than that, he walks away, never sees the woman again and possibly passes on his genes to the next generation. Low risk, high reward.

A high status male could feasibly reproduce hundreds or thousands of times in his lifetime. (Think of emperors with harems or the middle-ages �??Divine Right of Kings�?? to sleep with every newlywed woman, or in our era, certain celebrities.) With men, casual sex trends markedly towards the �??reward�?? side of the risk/reward spectrum.

The first law of behavioral genetics is that all human behavioral traits are heritable. Therefore, a man who was genetically inclined to seek out frequent sexual encounters would be more likely to pass on the genes with that inclination to future generations.

Over hundreds of thousands of years, it would be safe to say that every single male would, to some degree, inherit genes of that nature.

What are the potential costs of casual sex for a woman? Eighteen years of raising a child, and all the other burdens that come with single motherhood, including a diminished ability to attract a long-term monogamous mate. From the same perspective, what are the potential benefits? She raises a child and passes on her genes.

A woman is extremely limited in the number of children she can have in a lifetime, particularly if she is unsupported.

The consequences of a woman indiscriminately choosing a casual sex partner could be severe. If she chooses poorly, she will be raising a child unsupported, and if her mate was of poor genetic quality, her child will be weaker and less likely to attain high social status and reproduce in its own lifespan.

Any woman who happened to be genetically inclined towards casual sex with low-status and/or genetically weak men would be extremely unlikely to propagate her particular genetic traits into the gene pool. Her female competitors who selectively chose high status males in the context of a supportive relationship would be much more likely to pass on their behavioral traits.

The potential investment and cost to woman of casual sex is substantially higher than it is for men, and the rewards for pursuing such a strategy are potentially much lower. What this boils down to when it comes to bio-psychological differences between genders is that the basic strategy for men is to seek quantity over quality. For women it is the opposite.

Both genders have evolved elaborate strategies to this end. Women are more likely to cheat with men who are of higher social status than their current partners. A woman can accurately gauge a man�??s testosterone levels relative to his peers by his facial features. While cheating, they are also more likely to orgasm and less likely to use contraception.

A study repeated numerous times around the world conducted genetics testing on the children of monogamous couples and found that roughly fifteen percent of the children tested did not belong to their supposed father. The rate of cuckoldry (men unsuspectingly raising another�??s child) increased inversely to the socioeconomic status of the test subjects.

Research has shown that a man�??s sperm count actually increases with the likelihood of his partner having had an opportunity to cheat, such as her being out of town for the weekend at a business conference, or hanging out with her friends who are really good listeners and all happen to play on the same rugby team.

Men are much more distressed by the idea of a woman becoming sexually, as opposed to emotionally, involved with another man. In some cultures, and possibly the state of Texas, catching one�??s wife in bed with another man was an excusable reason for murder.

Studies have shown that women, in contrast, are more distressed by the thought of man�??s emotional infidelity. The idea of her partner having sex with another woman is less distressful than the idea that he may be in love with the mistress and willing to leave his current relationship and commit his resources to her.

The qualifications a man needs in order to find a woman sexually attractive (in the context of casual sex) are primarily visual and deal with genetic fitness and childbearing potential. Young, good skin, firm muscles, large breasts, wide hips and a narrow waist etc. A woman�??s criteria are more stringent, due to the emphasis on quality and high status.

This is partly why women are not as easily aroused visually. They need to know more about a man�??s personality for him to qualify. There is a much more emotional process.

Interestingly, the criteria and strategies the genders use in selecting a long-term monogamous mate are quite similar to each other and vary a good deal from those adopted for casual sex.

I could go on with this for a good long while, but my point here Nate, which I�??m fairly certain you already understand, is that you have not lost your mind. You are functioning exactly the way nature has wired you. The basic human sexual strategy is a monogamous relationship with occasional opportunistic infidelities.

The only question here, one that I deal with myself, is that despite your nature, if your conscious mind has placed you in a relationship with the premise of fidelity, then instincts or not, you will be breaking your word if you stray. And what is a man whose word is of no good?

The solution to this dilemma? G.B. Shaw was pretty accurate with his statement about first-rate men. You�??d be surprised how many women are ok with the concept of �??multiple long-term relationships.�??

[quote]craigk2 wrote:
A bunch of great stuff


Very insightful post, man. There’s a book on the subject entitled “Sperm Wars” that I have to pick up.

Thanks for writing.


[quote]craigk2 wrote:

The first law of behavioral genetics is that all human behavioral traits are heritable.


While I think that looking through human behavior through a genetic/evolutionary lens can be interesting and quite illuminating in some cases, this is an absurd assumption; hardly a “law” in the scientific sense. Or perhaps I misunderstand the limitations of what constitutes a behavioral trait–either way, I’d like to know what other people think of this statement.

another interesting bit is that novelty is a huge factor in attraction.

a study examined how males (animals, but generelazeable to humans) are attracted to novel partners. when i say novel partners, i mean partners that arent relationship-material, but are just a source of sexual gratification. Novel is basically SHORT TERM pussy.

without the details, the study showed that males find MUCH more sexual gratification fucking many different females as opposed to the same female. this was measured by erection size, intercourse duration, volume of ejaculation, etc.

so, even if ur in a relationship, its completely normal to THINK YOU WANT novel sex partners. that being said, thats not generally an acceptable practice, and not generally one that will make you happy in the long run.

next time that happens, recognize that some biological/psychological mechanisms are going off, but also realize that you can control that, and your relationship has the potential to yield much more satisfacton.

i like the “jerk off and THEN think about it” line, its so true. it just shows u how much your sexual urges can fuck with your thoughts.

[quote]Sneaky weasel wrote:
craigk2 wrote:

The first law of behavioral genetics is that all human behavioral traits are heritable.

While I think that looking through human behavior through a genetic/evolutionary lens can be interesting and quite illuminating in some cases, this is an absurd assumption; hardly a “law” in the scientific sense. Or perhaps I misunderstand the limitations of what constitutes a behavioral trait–either way, I’d like to know what other people think of this statement.[/quote]

"The three laws of behavioral genetics may be the most important discoveries in the history of psychology. Yet most psychologists have not come to grips with them, and most intellectuals do not understand them, even when they have been explained in the cover stories of newsmagazines.

It is not because the laws are abstruse: each can be stated in a sentence, without mathematical paraphernalia. Rather, is is because the laws run roughshod over the Blank Slate, and the Blank Slate is so entrenched that many intellectuals cannot comprehend an alternative to it, let alone argue whether it is right or wrong."

  • ‘THE BLANK SLATE - The Modern Denial of Human Nature’ by Steven Pinker. Chapter 19.

Steven Pinker is Professor of Psychology and Director of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

A little later in Chapter 19 Mr. Pinker answers the question, “What is a 'behavioral trait?”

[quote]youngguns516 wrote:
another interesting bit is that novelty is a huge factor in attraction.[quote]

I believe it was the book “Liars, Lovers and Heroes” that originally illuminated for me the necessity of novelty in human experience. Novelty triggers a substantial neurotransmitter response and is an essential part of what brings happiness to a human.

I believe that the degree to which this is true varies substantially from one person to another, and I know that the expression of the Delta-4 Dopamine receptor gene plays a role in this. Those with a longer than normal version of the D-4 DR gene are found to engage in riskier behavior, have more controversial political opinions, a wider range of sexual partners, etc.

This is something that I’ve been fascinated by for quite some time but the information on the subject seems limited. I’ve just purchased the book, “Behavioral Expressions and Biosocial Bases for Sensation Seeking” and I’m hoping to learn more on that particular subject from it.

+2 for the Mitch Hedberg reference.


So what I got out of this is that Nate has a bunch of hot chicks stalking him with the intentions of screwing his brains out? Now that’s what I call a problem!

A strong dose of anti-biotics usually takes care of any “Ghosts of Hook-Ups Past”.

Or at least thats been my experience.

[quote]Bujo wrote:
A strong dose of anti-biotics usually takes care of any “Ghosts of Hook-Ups Past”.

Or at least thats been my experience.[/quote]

That’s the funniest thing I’ve read in a long while.