# Players Die Young **URL:** \ **Category:** Lounge\ **Created:** [September 17, 2010, 10:44pm UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/players-die-young/41839 "2010-09-17T22:44:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![PheroQuirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9e8a1a/32.png) [@PheroQuirk](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/PheroQuirk)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 10:44pm UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/players-die-young/41839/1 "2010-09-17T22:44:34Z")
Your grandfather knew this… > [@](#): > > Promiscuous males are so intent on pursuing sexual partners that they can neglect even essential tasks such as eating, says a new study published in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology. > > The finding suggests that male promiscuity is not more common – despite its potential evolutionary advantages – because it is subject to natural limitations: playboy males have stunted growth and go to an early grave. …] > > When the male fish were regularly supplied with new unfamiliar females throughout their life, they spent less time looking for food and more time pursuing the females. Males living with unfamiliar females also grew more slowly and to a smaller adult size, and tended to die sooner. > > In contrast, males living with a single partner ate regularly, grew steadily throughout their lives and lived longer. > > “The considerable costs of promiscuity to the individuals involved reveal a natural limitation on promiscuous behaviour, previously undescribed in vertebrates,” says Jordan. “Perhaps those who wish for a more promiscuous existence will see this as a warning. ---
**Author:** ![RADMAN513](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/radman513/32/364_2.png) [@RADMAN513](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/RADMAN513)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2010, 1:37am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/players-die-young/41839/2 "2010-09-18T01:37:24Z")
That’s fish man. Hardly the same. Now a counter argument would be that eventually both the promiscuous and monogamous fish will inevitably die, one may live longer but even that one will die. But the promiscuous fish will likely produce much more offspring and more genetic diversity would be added to his line thus raising substantially the odds of his genes lasting long beyond his own life. ---
**Author:** ![millwark](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/millwark/32/560_2.png) [@millwark](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/millwark)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2010, 4:29am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/players-die-young/41839/3 "2010-09-19T04:29:09Z")
> [@RADMAN513](#): > > That’s fish man. Hardly the same. Now a counter argument would be that eventually both the promiscuous and monogamous fish will inevitably die, one may live longer but even that one will die. But the promiscuous fish will likely produce much more offspring and more genetic diversity would be added to his line thus raising substantially the odds of his genes lasting long beyond his own life. That may be true, but what will your offspring think of you for having brought them into this life in such a manner? 🙄 ---
**Author:** ![RADMAN513](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/radman513/32/364_2.png) [@RADMAN513](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/RADMAN513)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2010, 5:29am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/players-die-young/41839/4 "2010-09-19T05:29:25Z")
Well the point I was actually making is that using a species lower on the evolutionary scale than even birds is hardly a valid comparison for human behavior. For a branch of the animal kingdom that’s not capable of the level of conscious thought that the family dog is capable of, quantity and diversity of future generations trumps it’s own lifespan. Following the logic of promiscuity being bad for your health, so is self sacrifice for your own offspring. Would you support a post saying that putting your own childs needs ahead of your own is an example of bad behavior? Of course not. The essential reason the fish is promiscuous even to the detriment of it’s own health is that in nature you WILL die…no matter how much you invest in yourself and your own survival you will die. So you put your energy into ensuring the survival of your genes. For an egg laying fish, it’s a raw numbers game. Which is easy since lacking our large brains simple animals are usually able to fend for themselves fairly quickly. But for humans it’s more about investment in fewer offspring, but make no mistake. The emotional and financial burdens that a man takes on when he chooses to raise even one child is comparable to the level of stress the fish puts into getting his genes out there as much as possible. Is it worth it? Personally from a logical perspective I think so. ---
**Author:** ![MVKBUGATTI](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/50afbb/32.png) [@MVKBUGATTI](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/MVKBUGATTI)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2010, 2:47pm UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/players-die-young/41839/5 "2010-09-19T14:47:53Z")
> [@PheroQuirk](#): > > Your grandfather knew this… Comparing what a fish does in its life to…? I believe it isn’t constructive in relating fish with a live human being that has self-awareness, or reflective thought: which is the main attribute distinguishing humans from animals or fish for that matter. It is the consciousness that enables **us** to think inwardly and to contemplate ourselves. It is indeed a great blessing to be aware of oneself. This is the characteristically human quality. I can really see some key points but that thing with fish then relating it to humans is not sound doctrine.