When I said we can choose to be animals, I was speaking in terms of either 'choosing the straight-and-narrow human path' or 'choosing the open-range of the animals and outlaws.' - Call me MythMan, MythMan J

I don't think that any man over 16 would seriously consider falling in love with more than one girl simultaneously ... sure, he might fall in love with one and simply use the body of the other(s) (supposing poly-love were common); but you'll notice that most/all of SugarCult's examples of 'Doing' don't involve much "love." By 'society of long ago,' I mean the kind I rehd about (in the Bible) that I would've lived in 'back then,' (and by 'back then' I mean NOT NOW lol). When I was talking about that idealism--how it is the males' job to meet as many women as possible and "roll `em `round `til one stick" lol--I was of course thinking of my socialism-idea (which I'm mulling-over, which I'll soon write here), in which all an individual has aspirations for is his/her success with the opposite sex. You're never off track, Ms M. That's why we have laws---not to keep us human, but to remind us that we might choose to be animals (and telling us we're letting our free-will be taken away from us if we choose to break the law.) - Call me MythMan, MythMan J

When you said you were “being too Old School Biblical“, with my assumption that a woman cannot satisfy the lust of man/men before being wed in holy matrimony here, then does that mean Old School Biblical condone polygamy? Did they ever? How can that one man satisfy the lust of “loads of women” under the covers unless they marry the same “load of women“? That is assuming there is some satisfying of lust involved in the Having of the “load of women”. I guess I have also assumed that Old School Biblical is the same as “Society of Long Ago“, which seemed apparent to me in your second comment, in your Clarification. Is that what I am missing? It makes sense if you are stating the views of Society of Long Long Ago, but not if you’re “being too Old School Biblical“, so it would make sense if there’s a difference between the two, or if Old School Biblical condone polygamy. Can you please clarify again, what you meant by Society of Long Ago? How long ago? Which society? Well, I might see what you're saying too, if what you are talking about is applying the Old School Biblical/Society of Long Ago way-of-thinking to modern day relationships, but that's only carrying over one small detail. Its only significance to me is that women would have an obligation to not give up their goods to more than one man at a time, while men can sling it around with “loads of women” simultaneously, however protected they are. I understand how it translates to "not putting pü$§ÿ on a pedestal", but in 5 girls to 1 guy, how the heck long is it going to take for each of those girls to settle down? They all have to wait on that one guy to choose which will be the one “with whom he shares his secrets”, then have to move on to the next guy and sit around waiting for his choice, and so on? Or they could just decide to ditch his indecisive a$$, one by one, until there is only one left and for him, no choice in the one with whom he will share his secrets. I would also advise against the placing of pü$§ÿ on such a pedestal, especially in our time. If we are animals and choose to act like animals, then us womenfolk aren't always going to behave according to society standards, and we will find ourselves compelled to behave impulsively, without thinking, when we are appropriately 'excited' by the object of our lust. Which can happen at any time. Did I fall off the track somehow?

Can you clarify whether you're saying it shouldn'T be Every American Woman's Anthem too? Why is this only for American Men, why not All Men? If American Men can then what reasons are there for limiting all the Other Men? What are the reasons that men can have a 'load of women' and women can't have a 'load of men' all at one time? The way you describe Old School mentality makes them sound like animals. Do they think we should all be like animals? That does sound like an unpleasantly male-centered mentality, good thing it doesn't actually reflect your own perspective.