Azelma wrote:
I disagree with this on a fundamental level. Yes, men are motivated to stick their dick in lots of things, and women can be attracted to many different mates too. But centuries of monogamous relationships suggest that it's not as simple as "biological programming" one way or the other.........
Callysta wrote:
Some people are toxic combinations. Codependency, abuse, infidelity, immaturity... These things can destroy even the best intentioned individuals. All you can do if you fail is try to bounce back and try again.
Monogamy has only ever applied to women. Men have always been free to stick their dicks in whomever they like, of either gender, as long as they can manage "plausible deniability".
One of the ugly truths of human nature is that men and women are wired very differently when it comes to sex. Men can neatly separate the physical and emotional element, and intelligently decide which they are after.
Women can't. This is why so many promiscuous women wind up just plain crazy, can't keep a marriage together, habitually blame others for their own inability to do so, etc, while guys like Fanta or React (and there are legions of them) can stick their dicks in however many creatures then settle down with a family.
This is also why women freak out over rape, and are totally susceptible to it (paralyzed by fear or uncertainty when they have the means to resist or escape). Men have been raping each other since the beginning of time, and while for a man it is obviously degrading, traumatic, and physically unpleasant (the latter far more so than for a woman, for obvious reasons), men aren't mortified by it and typically don't become perverse in response, because they're wired differently.
Azelma wrote:
Think of children...what does it take to care for a baby? Back in our early human existence, a woman couldn't have taken care of a baby on her own. Either a man, or a tribe/community had to support her and the child to help the species continue to thrive. Who hunted? Who defended the family? It was very essential for a woman to have a man bonded to her to raise his child. Equally, it was helpful for a men to have a woman bonded to him...else she would be fucking other guys and potentially fathering their offspring instead of his...
Today, with the economic pressures children bring...it's still quite difficult to raise a child by yourself (without the help of the government / your family + community ). Time and time again studies show, stable two parent households (or at least families where both parents are involved) produce healthier more successful children.
I don't think this is an accident. I think the family unit (and I include non-traditional same-sex families in this, as well as blended families) is still the best way to help foster successful children, and fulfill our friend Darwin's theories. You want your kids to grow up and be strong and have kids, and they want their kids to have kids, and so on. Gotta carry on those genes!
Yes. Exactly.
Azelma wrote:
Look at African-American society. Their are many obstacles they face, no doubt. But one of the most significant is the epidemic of absent fathers. You know, the "baby daddy" What are gangs? Gang leadership? It's relying on "community" and strength because of a lack of a paternal/maternal balance at home. Study after study shows that those in single parent households are more likely to resort to crime, more likely to be less successful in education, and so on.
Malcolm X once said, "White people landed on Plymouth Rock. Plymouth Rock landed on us."
It's very true, in more than one sense. In the postwar years, things started to look up for black people. They started to "move on up to the East Side", filter into mainstream employment, etc. So how did we get from that progress to so many young black men regressing? Black women trying and failing to find decent men and instead being dependent on Sec8 and the SSA?
Blacks are and have always been at the bottom of the employment ladder. The American economy has been hollowing itself out for years. Black men being unable to "feed a family as well as a pizza", or being unwilling to work because work does not provide them with the means to save nor any sort of social respectability, is a phenomenon that is beginning to affect whites as well. Blacks, being at the bottom of the employment ladder, were very much the canary in the mine - the gas is filtering up from the bottom.
For black people, too, traditional values have been vacillating in favor of material values. White people mock black men who wear bling and dollar-sign necklaces, but are they really any different than white people with underwater mortgages, driving a Lexus and engaging in other forms of tasteless conspicuous consumption? Or is it just that the less one has, the more it means?
Time was, land and housing was cheap, and a black family could live in a shack in Missouri, buying cheap food at the farmer's market, eating free range chicken ten times a week. (Raising chickens is piss easy, by the way - the reason they are poor people food is that you can just put some chickens behind a fence, and as long as you keep the wolves and gypsies away, they'll do their thing, unlike pigs and cows, which are pretty high-maintenance). But when that didn't work anymore, land prices went up, food prices went down, wealth flowed into the economy, American society became reliant on the car, the blacks went to the cities, and when that didn't work out, went on welfare and spent their time just enjoying themselves.
How can one expect black men to be responsible when they have neither the means nor the inclination to do so? How and why would a black man hold a menial job that he knows won't allow him to save or buy a house, much less be treated with respect, when he can just go off and do his own thing? And if there wasn't welfare, why should he accept such an unfair social arrangement, without fighting to change it?
Racism is and has always been a tool of the wealthy to divide the poor. That hasn't changed. All that the plight of black people shows is that when material considerations take precedence over human values, the result is chaos. They just had the misfortune of being the first group in America to be crushed under the sinking employment ladder.
Azelma wrote:
Finally, and here's the silver bullet, study after study shows that chemicals are released after sex and in relationships that encourage bonding: Human bonding is a real thing...and sexual activity can be an essential part of that. Even in one night stands...why do some men and women still cuddle after coitus? Yes, our biology motivates us to stick it in as many things as possible...but it also has parts that encourage human bonding for child rearing and success.
Study? lol. See above satire.
The thing is, though, women are VASTLY more susceptible to bonding by coitus than men. This is, again, why so many sluts wind up just plain nuts and uncontrollable. And it's very Darwinian. Why should men bond easily when their gametes are dirt cheap? Conversely, can women afford to bond easily, when their gametes are so expensive, and they bear the costs of pregnancy, but they are less economically productive?
Nature's way of acting out Darwinian impulses is to play a sort of shell game. What is called the "double standard" is really just "the selfish gene" being reconciled with the needs of civilized society.
