I Want My Wife To Gang Bang Black Men. This Story Is About Why Wives Love Gang Bangs!
I have been trying to persuade my sexy Asian wife wife to suck & **** black men for it seems like a long time. In the process I researched *********, cuckolds, etc. and have decided gang bangs, multiple partners, cuckolding, etc is perfectly normal... Why are women "programed" for *********? Why have women evolved to be genetically inclined toward *********, multiple sex partners and multiple *******? Why has gangbanging evolved/developed as an evolutionary, selective advantage for our species? That has to be so - women developed the proclivity toward ********* through evolution and it must have at some time in our evolutionary past served a purpose in our survival as a species.
Nothing in nature/evolution is by chance. All of our sexual inclinations meet evolutionary needs at some point. Everything in nature/evolution is determined by the genetic instinct of survival - genetic survival - of the species. Whatever genetic or cultural trait offers a selective advantage is going to evolve. What does not serve as a genetic or cultural selective advantage does not evolve, does not survive. Women have evolved to ******** and to have multiple ******* and multiple sex partners. This is no accident. It is not chance that women have the capacity for multiple partners, multiple ******* and gangbanging. Somehow this capacity served a purpose, or it would not have survived. In some way, a woman's capacity for and ability to ******** and to have multiple sex partners and multiple ******* was a seletive advantage for the species. Women would not have evolved with that inclination and capacity if it hadn't been a selective advantage for the species. The genes of women who ********** survived. The genes of women who did not ******** did not survive. The genes of women who had the capacity and inclination for gangbanging and multiple sex partners survived and passed on that genetic trait to their offspring through their genes.
If it is a selective advantage for cheetahs to run fast, cheetahs will run fast. A slow cheetah will not pass on her slow genes. Only the fast cheetahs will pass on their fast genes. If it is a selective advantage for zebras to be striped and to be herd animals, zebras will be striped and will be herd animals. Individualistic zebras of a solid color did not pass on their genes; only the conformist zebras (all striped and all herd animals) survived to pass on their genes. If it is a selective advantage for giraffes to have long necks, giraffes will have long necks. Short necked giraffes didn't survive to pass on their short neck genes. If it is a selective advantage for wolves to hunt in packs, wolves will hunt in packs. Lone wolves who travel alone will not survive to pass on their "lone wolf" genes. If it is a selective advantage for walking sticks to blend in with their environment, walking sticks will blend in with their environment. Pink polka dot walking sticks that stand out in their environment will not survive and pass on their "sticking out" genes. Since women are geared for, adapted to, have the capacity for and inclination for *********, multiple sex partners and multiple *******, it obviously is, or at least was, a selective advantage for our species in our evolutionary, genetic past that women be gangbangers. For a woman to ********, to have multiple sex partners and multiple *******, is a natural thing. It is how women have evolved. Women by nature are gangbangers. In our ancient past as a species it was probably the norm for a woman of the clan or tribe to ******** other members of the clan or tribe. Even in our recent cultural past (e.g., Celtic societies where everything was shared, including the women), this (women gangbanging and having multiple sex partners) was often the norm. I suspect, also, that it (woman having multiple sex partners and gangbanging) was healthier for women than today's puritanical sexual suppression of women so prevalent in the recent history of the west.
Of course, men are promiscuous by nature, too. Its easy to understand how that (men being promiscuous) evolved and how that tendency was a genetic, selective advantage in our evolutionary past. Primitive man waged constant "war" against competing clans/tribes. As he raided his competitors' villages and camps, he raped and/or captured his enemies' women, thus spreading his genes and insuring his and his clan's/tribe's genetic survival. The more women he could put his seed into, the greater chance for the survival of his genes. The more women the tribe's or clan's men could plant their seeds, the greater chance for the survival of the genes of the tribe or clan. This is all that nature concerned itself with - propagation and through it the genetic survival of the species. If the warriors of the clan were spreading their genes thru war and rapine, this was, for a long time, a selective, genetic advantage for that clan. Thus, modern man's inclination toward promiscuity.
Analogous to man's natural promiscuity is his inclination to have multiple wives. It must have been a selective advantage to our species for men to have multiple wives since it appears so often among so many different cultures throughout history. Women are "programmed" for *********; men are "wired" for promiscuity and polygamy. For both, the principle is the same - profligacy. Nature's only law seems to be profligacy - the more babies, the better the chances for the species' genetic survival. The best way for women to get and stay pregnant is to **** as many men as possible as often as possible. The best way for a man to produce as many offspring as possible (this is all that nature is concerned with) is to **** as many women as he can as often as he can. By nature, both women and men have evolved to **** as many different sexual partners as they reasonably can. By nature, men and women are *****. Women are naturally inclined to ********; men are naturally inclined to be polygamous. Of course, for the babies to survive and pass on their genes, women have to keep the men around to provide and protect their children. Without men to protect them, the women and children are too vulnerable and not likely to survive. Women had to find a way to keep men around to protect and provide for them. Women managed that by being sexually available to as many men as possible as often as possible. In other words, women were able to keep men around to protect and provide for them by being *****.
Similar to a woman's capacity to ******** is a woman's capacity to always be in "heat". Unlike other animals which come in heat periodically, women are always in "heat." Obviously, for this trait or characteristic to have survived it had to have been a selective advantage for the species. How so? The ancient, primitive early days of mankind were extremely dangerous. Survival was a close thing. It takes a long time for a human to grow and develop. Until a baby is at least able to run, it is helpless and completely dependent upon its mother. A mother, too, with a young child and/or young children is vulnerable, if not helpless, in a primitive, prehistoric world. A mother would not be able to leave her child, and/or children, to go hunt, etc. A woman, especially a mother, needed a man, or men, to protect her. So, how does a woman keep a man, or men, around all the time to protect her and her children? Sex! That is the only thing that could keep the men around to protect her. She is always in heat. She is always available for sex. In short, she is a ****. It was a woman's proclivity toward sex at any and all times that kept a man, or men, handy to protect her and her offspring. Moreover, the more men she was available for, the more men there to protect and provide for her. It was a woman's sluttiness and promiscuity that provided for her protection and that of her offspring. The genetically successful women were ***** and passed on their **** genes. Those women who weren't always available for sex did not survive to pass on their genes. It was those women who were ******* anybody and everybody who would then hang around to protect and provide for her and her children who survived to pass on their **** genes. The gangbanging, promiscuous and slutty genetic traits thrived and survived (genetically). Those women who didn't "put out" did not survive, nor did their children, to pass on their more puritanical genes. As a result, we should have significantly more ***** than "nice" girls in our midst.
Analogous to this (a woman's inclination for gangbanging) is cuckolding. There must also have been a selective advantage for cuckoldry for it to be so prevalent in our society. Millions of men today want to watch their wives **** other men. Usually, it is older men wanting to watch their wives **** younger men. Why would husbands want to watch strange men **** their wives unless it served some old, inherent biological, genetic, evolutionary purpose in our evolutionary past? I suspect that men with children wanted to insure their survival (thus, pass on their own genes). In our ancient, evolutionary past men hunted. They, also, fought other tribes, and they had to defend themselves against other tribes and clans as well as formidable predators. In short, life was incredibly dangerous for the men of the clan or tribe for the millions of years that we barely survived in prehistoric times. A man's life expectancy cannot have been very long. In all probability, he couldn't have been expected to survive much past his early 20s. With his premature death from a battle or a hunt, what would become of his wife and children? How would they survive? Who would protect and provide for them? I think, as a man grew older and contemplated his death, he wanted to insure his wife's well-being (thus, his children's well-being) so he arranged for younger men to **** his wife. It was a kind of an "insurance policy" for his wife and kids. By giving younger men an "interest" or a "claim" on his wife, he provided for her immediate well-being in the event of his early demise. By encouraging a relationship with his wife to other, younger men, he was in effect purchasing an insurance policy in the event of his death. By allowing other, younger men to **** his wife, he was guaranteeing someone would be there protect and provide for his wife and children in the event of his own death.
In prehistoric times our species' survival was a close thing. Times were tough. Life was short, violent and dangerous. Neither men, nor women lived a long time; their lives were full of danger - dangers of the hunt, predators, other clans, child birth, etc. Probably more babies died than survived in those times. Life hung in the balance for all concerned - the individual, the clan, the tribe, the species itself hung by thread in its battle for survival. It was a close thing. In order to increase our survival (of the individual, the clan and the species itself), women evolved to be sexually available 24/7. The women were probably available to multiple members of the clan or tribe, too. This assured that there would always be many men to provide and protect the women and their children; it also assured that women would get and stay pregnant as often as possible. The more babies born, the greater chances for the genetic survival of the species. For the first millions of years of our existence, the very survival of the species required that women of the clan be *****. It was a tremendous selective advantage for the species for the women to sexually active at all possible times and to as many of the members of the tribe or clan as possible. Undoubtedly, the reason that women evolved to have multiple sex partners and multiple *******, is that it was a selective advantage to our species that they ******** all the members of the clan or tribe. Women have evolved to ******** and are naturally and biologically suited for gangbanging. Gangbanging should be natural to women. Women have evolved to ********.
This, of course, is an over-simplified presentation - the sexual natures of men and women are complex and multi-faceted. Certainly, however, the traditional, puritanical views that are the conventional wisdom today are themselves over-simplified. Moreover, they seem in many respects unnatural, unhealthy and illogical. I suspect our western, judeo/christian sexual "mores" do more harm than good. A good argument could be made, I think, that the contrarian open lifestyles offer a more natural, sensible approach to sex. Of course, one must also recognize the almost universal "mores" that have risen by custom across many, various societies' and cultures' throughout history. For such universal sexual mores to have arisen by custom and to be accepted across so many different cultures and times, gives credance to such values and practices, These universal, sexual mores must have inherent value and merit and should be given serious consideration in any discussion of sex and society. These universal, cultural traits such as the "double standard", the preference for virtuous girls for marriage by men, the high value given to chastity for women and the association of sex with love by women are all almost universally accepted across many different times and cultures. Thus, there there must have been a sound genetic, biological and evolutionary basis for those universal cultural traits as well. Perhaps, for the first several millions of years of our existence, promiscuity worked best for us, whereas in the past several thousands of years "virtue" has worked best for us. I do not know. But I do know that women today would not have the tendency toward multiple sex partners and multiple ******* unless it served some past, evolutionary purpose. It is with us today because it was part of our make up long ago.