Man and Woman's Evolution

[Kelly Jones]

Well, in the studies of lateral gynandromorphism, the mammal's brain is scanned at adulthood, showing the discrete hemispheres despite the brain being flooded equally with male and female hormones. Presumably this was happening in embryo also, since the gonads would have been forming then also. If the studies were of the mammal's brain in embryo, it would probably be clearer.

Famous research is that of Gunter Dorner a few decades back. He experimented a lot with rats (their post-natal brains can be researched better, as the brains still mature significantly after birth) and demonstrated the influence of testosterone on its later masculine (mating) behavior. It appeared the later the castration was done, the less difference to the masculineness it made. The less time hormones were allowed to shape the brain in the earliest formation stage (comparable to last stages of human pregnancy), the more feminine behavior later on. Flooding the rat with any kind of hormones in a later stage didn't influence any of the brain's preferences. Which doesn't mean it's not possible, just that it might need more than peer pressure or expectation.

Of course it's unknown to me which peer pressure rats could apply on each other for assumed gender roles. They might be very conservative!

Apparently, some sexualisation of the brain cannot be reversed after birth, but of course sex drive (which you describe above) can be. Check this out, describing neonatal castration of rats, focussing on the corpus callosum. However, the following papers discuss some sexualisation altered or prevented after birth, with neonatal castration: such as the amygdala, arcuate nucleus, and other parts: here, here, here

[Blair]

Watch a young woman sit with her legs crossed in a park, eating ice-cream.

Wanting a baby.

Oblivious and Empty.

[jupiviv]

Effort need not be extra. Evolutionary impulses are rather effortless.

Well, by "extra effort" I meant a conscious effort, in the face of some opposition. From what you said here it would follow that the women didn't make any conscious effort whatsoever, which in turn would contradict what you said earlier.

If you are trying to get someone to do something that they don't want to do then you are forcing them.

Manipulation is a better choice of word for what I was describing.

Yes, "manipulation" would be more accurate, but manipulation is a milder, less direct kind of forcing.

Why do you say that other women wouldn't make a difference? If a man wants sex, and the woman he has children with is playing hard-to-get, he'll naturally try to have sex with other women.

Evolution affects all women.

And...? Are you suggesting that because evolution affects all women, that all of them would simultaneously behave in the same way to all men?

No, 'bad boys' show all the traits that a good provider or even protector wouldn't have.

Remember, it's all about appearances with women, the motivation and actions of men are secondary.

Well, even the "appearance" of the bad boys isn't one of a protector and provider. At least, not to me.

Millions of years ago scientists estimate humans were lucky if they made it to age 30. One gray hair and you were likely seen as having one foot in the grave. :)

Actually it's probably even lesser than that, but the age factor was still there. An aged(and therefore most likely experienced) mammoth hunter would have less of a chance of getting squashed than a young one. And humans were always group oriented, so early humans probably provided for the women and children in their pack. The women would want to get inseminated by the most able and mature people around, who are more likely to be the older ones.

I agree with Weininger that all women have the two traits of mother and prostitute in them, in greater or lesser degree.

Sure, and what I'm talking about here is the prostitute and how she evolved.

Well, the prostitute(using Weininger's definition) isn't concerned about having children or being provided for by a single man. To quote Weininger - "The essence of motherhood consists, as the most superficial investigation will reveal, in that the getting of the child is the chief object of life, whereas in the prostitute sexual relations in themselves are the end."

Weininger himself said that the origin of the prostitute element cannot ever be traced. I disagree with him, because it can be traced in the criminal element in man, which is the result of a little consciousness being added to desire. Similarly, motherhood is related to insanity(which is essentially the same thing as immorality, but expressed differently.) Consciousness is able to distinguish between the sexual desire and the desire to have children, which is the origin of "mother and prostitute."

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Apparently, some sexualisation of the brain cannot be reversed after birth, but of course sex drive (which you describe above) can be. Check this out, describing neonatal castration of rats, focussing on the corpus callosum. However, the following papers discuss some sexualisation altered or prevented after birth, with neonatal castration: such as the amygdala, arcuate nucleus, and other parts...

Thanks for sharing the links although it's a bit too technical at times for me know how to interpret it correctly.

I'm not sure which behavior is associated with a masculine brain in all of the mentioned experiments. Sometimes it's about sexual preference, but also agression is mentioned, in the context I'd guess of territory and mate selection. The research which relies just on brain scans would be in the context of Fine's thesis still suspect. And the question could still arise if the sexual behavior of rats could be modified by some contextual correction or feedback. Rats are also very social animals and one might wonder how their behavior would be amplified in that context. The described experiments do not go into that detail and I cannot find detailed descriptions yet of the whole setting.

[Cory Duchesne]

In the present age, particularly in the west, marriage has come to mean very little since you can get a divorce simply because you feel like it, and there are government programs to protect women from poverty, so things have changed. Men no longer find marriage sensible or appealing, and for good reason. You can end up paying child support to kids who are being raised and provided for by another father. Perhaps some men deserve such a fate, but many others do not. The state, practically a matriarchy, has become the protector of and caterer to females. While there are some virtues to this situation, as it enables women to escape abuse, many men with good intentions but limited means are left scratching their heads.

So do you think that by women gaining more sexual freedom it could lead to the collapse of civilization, or at least make it much more chaotic?

I am no economist, but my seat of the pants observation is as follows: if masculinity is no longer a clearly defined, upheld and honored mentality, and if men do not keep other men in check through a clear outline of expectations, goals, subtle shaming and encouragement of each other, then men, at least a large majority of them, will gradually explore their sensual and emotional side to their own peril. And once one man succeeds in society as a sensualist, then that creates envy, confusion and inspires an arms race among men who also want to veto the burden of consciousness. And so you have a significant portion of the population living as if they think they are rock stars, meaning, lots of entitlement, lots of shopping beyond ones means, incidental and serious debt, drug addiction, broken marriages, screwed up kids, et, etc.

A good example of male psychology corrupted would be this song:

Time to Pretend

Pay attention to the lyrics, and it's quite clear that the psychology of the lyricist cannot bear stratification of male relationships, the ability to handle the stress of hierarchy with nobility and adhere to long standing cooperation toward rational goals. With the popularity of pop music and stars in general, and the envy people have of material things, it's a recipe for crippling collective debt combined with a lack of any practical technological skills.

Now compare the psychology of the musicians I linked above to this guy doing a TED talk: Juan Enriquez shares mindboggling new science

Admirable dude who takes cultural and even global responsibility with a respect for science and technology, trying to inspire others to do the same. But just imagine if, during his TED talk, he talked about the potential for engineering courage and intelligence in people! How would people react? He would be a villain.

Basically I see a polarization in the males of civilization. You have an increasingly large majority of sensualists who instill destructive envy in others, inspire financial debt, and find no meaning or enthusiasm in a cooperative striving toward rational ends. In contrast to that, you have a minority of rationalists who strive to improve technology, encourage rational spending (or a lack of spending) of money and work in a larger team of people trying to genuinely improve the chances of sustainability.

You'll find, I think, that with the male sensualists, there is an inability to maintain consistent relationships with women, and hence they exhibit a will to nothingness, a will to escape into the pretend.

On the other hand, the rationalists like Juan Enriquez and others like him, have a high status and pay and likely have little trouble maintaining their marriage or relationship, largely due to their status, money and also due to the intelligent personality that can procure said money.

Most men need a woman to maintain the strength needed for consciousness.

Will the sensualists drag the American economy down into further and further debt to the point where the rationalists lose the ability to work toward their goals of engineering an improved species? Clearly none of us can know, but there is definitely a war between the will to nothingness vs the will to reason. I am not sure what side will win, but it's a bit of a David vs. Goliath dynamic.

[jupiviv]

The will to nothingness will obviously win because even the "rationalists" have a lot of irrationality in them, which they don't want to destroy. The people on this forum are good examples of this. The battle is actually between the will to a little bit of reason(the will to nothingness), and no will at all(nothingness).

[Ryan Rudolph]

I would just like to comment on the Child Support comment Cory made earlier.

I agree with him that child support has evolved to favor women, much more so than men, and men often get the crappy end of the deal. Now if child support laws favored men, I think we would end up with more chaos than present, as children would be abandoned more frequently, and the birth rates would be much higher.

Moreover, such laws have evolved to protect children, more so than women. The problem is that women tend to get taken advantage of by men, who often times lose interest sexually, and therefore lose interest in a relationship altogether. Historically, there is a significant abandonment rate of men who suddenly grow bored of their wives, and run off with something younger. Living with someone tends to kill the romantic flame gradually, and I tend to think this is a natural thing, as it allows men and women to focus more on their duties of running a household. Moreover, the trend is that these bored men long to start new romantic lives, with new children, and forget about their other children. The result is that his first wives children could possibility be raised in poverty, while the father lives a middle class life with a newer, younger wife and new children. The deadbeat dad has serious ramifications for future generations.

Child Support laws guarantee that children are not abandoned by their biological fathers, this actually helps keep birth rates down, as men think twice how many children they have, if they know they will be financially responsible for each one, regardless of whether or not they are living with the biological mother.

And yes, women tend to capitalize on this, and use the child support to support themselves. However, to raise children, usually the mother's must give up much of their ability to generate income, so they are in a precarious situation, as biological mothers. Also, They are usually not born with the grit, callousness and drive needed to generate the significant income men do, while they are burdened with the responsibility of mother.

My opinion is that children are both a problem and a solution. They are a problem because they require such a commitment of time and economic resources to bring into maturity, but they are a solution because they are the only means we have to continue the species, and keep rationality alive.

Overall, it is a complicated subject.

There are many solutions to the complex issue of family, sex and conventional living, as many posters on GF advocate non-participation, which does guarantee a significant amount of freedom and leisure. However, there is a trade off, as if large numbers of intellectuals stop participating globally, one would expect that the collective genome will suffer as a result, worse than it already is degrading. So ones personal freedom would benefit from non-participation, but if large numbers of intellectuals jump on the bandwagon, vital gene combinations necessary for rationality could become more scarce, or perhaps even vanish, which would defeat the original purpose of the GF messageboard, which is to spread rationality, and ensure its survival into future generations.

My other concern is the current trend of blending, where racial interbreeding is encouraged, but scientists still do not know if some races possess vital gene combinations that will prove necessary for intellectual brains to be born from the outset. Blending of races could cause some of these combinations to disappear forever if they are lost in the interbreeding. For instance: Caucasian nations are on the road to lose their race through interbreeding, as their populations have allowed all different races to mix and interbreed. And as I said, we do not know if some races carry with them gene combinations that we need to fully understand in order to engineer a future super species.

I actually think anyone with a significant degree of rationality should have their genome mapped, and a website should be started where the mapped genomes of self-proclaimed sages around the world could be shared publicly. One could then analyze the data of the samples to find possible correlations between similarities.

[jupiviv]

The problem is that women tend to get taken advantage of by men, who often times lose interest sexually, and therefore lose interest in a relationship altogether. Historically, there is a significant abandonment rate of men who suddenly grow bored of their wives, and run off with something younger.

Do you have any statistics in mind?

Child Support laws guarantee that children are not abandoned by their biological fathers, this actually helps keep birth rates down, as men think twice how many children they have, if they know they will be financially responsible for each one, regardless of whether or not they are living with the biological mother.

In my knowledge, fathers are generally willing to support their own children, and the countries where child support laws are enacted are developed countries where people don't have that many children to begin with(for various reasons). I also don't see why a man would forget about some of his children and start supporting other children that he has by other women. The reason why people have more children in less developed countries is because they subconsciously expect some of them to die.

[Carmel]

The problem is that women tend to get taken advantage of by men, who often times lose interest sexually, and therefore lose interest in a relationship altogether. Historically, there is a significant abandonment rate of men who suddenly grow bored of their wives, and run off with something younger.

jupiviv:
Do you have any statistics in mind?

Carmel:
The statististics don't correlate with Ryan's claim, From Wiki: "According to a study published in "American Law and Review", women currently file slightly more than two-thirds divorce cases in the U.S. ...Evidence is given that among college educated couples, the percentages of divorces by women is approx. 90%."

There are many other sources than confirm these stats, and this holds true among middle aged women, as well.

That said, one can still hypothesize that some of the divorces are caused by the husband losing interest and having an affair with a younger woman, thereby prompting the women to seek divorce, but that's only one of many factors that might explain the divorce stats. 55% of men have extramarital affairs and 45% of woman have them, so it's not as simplistic as Ryan is suggesting.

There are also socio-economic factors at play. It's telling that college educated women seek divorce in 90% of the cases and this alludes to the premise which I suggested awhile ago, that is, that marriage is generally oppressive to women. The educated women are more likely to be financially self sufficient and not feel pressured to remain bound in marriage due to lack of other options.

[Cory Duchesne]

A man rarely abandons a woman, but a woman often abandons a man. Most breakups are initiated by women.

If a man falls in love with another woman, he just cheats, with always the intent of keeping his previous woman, sometimes trying to juggle both.

If a woman cheats, it's because she's looking to permanently jump ship.

Men are usually monogamous, and with rare gifts: polygamous. Women, when beautiful and cunning enough, are generally hypergamous.

[Kelly Jones]

Will the sensualists drag the American economy down into further and further debt to the point where the rationalists lose the ability to work toward their goals of engineering an improved species? Clearly none of us can know, but there is definitely a war between the will to nothingness vs the will to reason. I am not sure what side will win, but it's a bit of a David vs. Goliath dynamic.

I think the "will to reason" is more a case of people's will to survive. If there was not some degree of reality in their perceptions, they'd fluff-it pretty rapidly.

But I liked your analysis generally. It reminded me of Cyril Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons", where the leaders of humanity are an extreme minority of intelligent, incognito slaves, struggling to keep the horde-overrun civilisation from collapse. The slaves eventually send the hordes off into space, where they drift obliviously, like the Wall-eye movie - a huge spaceship full of helpless, balloon-like leeches served by robots... and eventually die. Ayn Rand's solution in "Atlas Shrugged" was for the rationalists to go on strike and "disappear" into an invisible sanctuary leaving the lazy, greedy, leech-like sensualists to their fate in a ravaged, famine-struck world.

I interpret it as on a metaphysical plane, rather than being about humanity. How does wisdom survive, in Pied Cow?

The Genius Forum may be like a little pocket of sanity - occasionally - but is like putting all your eggs in one basket. It's not showing foresight.

[jupiviv]

That said, one can still hypothesize that some of the divorces are caused by the husband losing interest and having an affair with a younger woman, thereby prompting the women to seek divorce, but that's only one of many factors that might explain the divorce stats.

Yes, but that isn't an argument for child support and custody laws in favour of women.

There are also socio-economic factors at play. It's telling that college educated women seek divorce in 90% of the cases and this alludes to the premise which I suggested awhile ago, that is, that marriage is generally oppressive to women. The educated women are more likely to be financially self sufficient and not feel pressured to remain bound in marriage due to lack of other options.

Getting up in the morning is oppressive to me, but that doesn't mean I don't get up. Women don't understand the concept of a contract - a timeless logical condition dictating the relationship of two people to each other - which is why they feel no strong need to stay in a marriage. Men may break contracts, but they will always know that they are doing so, because they understand what a contract is. If women stay faithful to their husbands, it's purely out of selfish, material interests, or because of the sexual bond they feel with their husbands.

[Carmel]

jupiviv:
Yes, but that isn't an argument for child support and custody laws in favour of women.

Carmel:
Thank you for stating the obvious. It wasn't meant to be an argument about child support laws, as is evidenced by the fact that I didn't mention child support.

jupiviv:
Getting up in the morning is oppressive to me, but that doesn't mean I don't get up. Women don't understand the concept of a contract - a timeless logical condition dictating the relationship of two people to each other - which is why they feel no strong need to stay in a marriage.

Carmel:
You're living in a fantasy land. If a man is physically, psychologically or emotionally abusive to a woman, or cheats on his wife, as 55% of men do. He, in essence, has already broken the contract. She has every right to seek a divorce under those circumstances, as does he if the reverse were true.

jupiviv:
Men may break contracts, but they will always know that they are doing so, because they understand what a contract is. If women stay faithful to their husbands, it's purely out of selfish, material interests, or because of the sexual bond they feel with their husbands.

Carmel:
What evidence do you have to support this opinion?

[Nick]

A man rarely abandons a woman, but a woman often abandons a man. Most breakups are initiated by women.

If a man falls in love with another woman, he just cheats, with always the intent of keeping his previous woman, sometimes trying to juggle both.

If a woman cheats, it's because she's looking to permanently jump ship.

Men are usually monogamous, and with rare gifts: polygamous. Women, when beautiful and cunning enough, are generally hypergamous.

Yes. Women don't necessarily want things like marriage and monogamy, all that matters to them is that they are being provided for and that they have the best possible person or persons doing the providing. Men on the other hand need things like marriage so they can relax. This way they don't have to constantly worry about who could be fucking their mate, or when they're going to get their next piece of ass. This had the added bonus of allowing men to think more deeply about other things, such as math, philosophy, politics, and science, all of which led to the rise of civilization.

And only up until about the last 40 years or so, and mostly just in western societies, there were harsh penalties for breaking the covenant of marriage. As far as recorded history and civilization goes, this is the first time marriage is no longer being used to manage our sexual relationships. It will be interesting to see how this plays out down the road...

[Carmel]

Nick:
Yes. Women don't necessarily want things like marriage and monogamy, all that matters to them is that they are being provided for and that they have the best possible person or persons doing the providing.

Carmel:
Yes, the best possible person being themselves, in many cases. Women constitute over half the workforce in America and 60% of college graduates...and neither gender seem to be interested in strict monogamy as I stated already and the data supports. I have no idea why Cory said that men are monogamous as he didn't back this up with any corroborating evidence.

Nick:
Men on the other hand need things like marriage so they can relax. This way they don't have to constantly worry about who could be fucking their mate, or when they're going to get their next piece of ass.

Carmel:
This view is overly simplistic. If marriage were merely about sex, men could simply hire a prostitute ...and marriage is no assurance that another male won't be "fucking their mate".

Nick:
This had the added bonus of allowing men to think more deeply about other things, such as math, philosophy, politics, and science, all of which led to the rise of civilization.

Carmel:
Because all men were in those fields of study, eh? The more typical reason marriage was of benefit traditionally, was due to the cooperative division of labor within the marriage. i.e. The men were working the farmland while the women were maintaining the household chores, laundry, cooking etc. ...or long before that, during say, the time of the hunter/gatherers, men were out hunting and the women were gathering nuts and berries. Marriage and cooperative efforts between the genders was essential to everyone's survival.

Nick:
As far as recorded history and civilization goes, this is the first time marriage is no longer being used to manage our sexual relationships. It will be interesting to see how this plays out down the road...

Carmel:
Again, you're oversimplifying what constitutes a marriage. There's far more to a marriage than just a sexual component. There are also emotional, psychological, mental and spiritual aspects to marriage, as well as the practical elements(i.e.division of labor/income). ...and this may be shocking to you, but some women and men actually like each other and have a platonic bond with their mates.

As for how this "plays out down the road", I won't go so far as to say marriage is obsolete, but it needs to be redefined in accordance with societal changes.

[jupiviv]

Getting up in the morning is oppressive to me, but that doesn't mean I don't get up. Women don't understand the concept of a contract - a timeless logical condition dictating the relationship of two people to each other - which is why they feel no strong need to stay in a marriage.

You're living in a fantasy land. If a man is physically, psychologically or emotionally abusive to a woman, or cheats on his wife, as 55% of men do. He, in essence, has already broken the contract. She has every right to seek a divorce under those circumstances, as does he if the reverse were true.

Yes, but why does it mean I'm living in a fantasy land? I never said men don't break contracts.

Also, where did you get the 55%/45% figures from? I think women cheat far more than men in their minds, the reason being that the faithfulness to the contract is lacking in them. If you want proof for this - this fact itself cannot be proven, but it can be inferred from other things.

Men may break contracts, but they will always know that they are doing so, because they understand what a contract is. If women stay faithful to their husbands, it's purely out of selfish, material interests, or because of the sexual bond they feel with their husbands.

What evidence do you have to support this opinion?

Essentially - that women in general are more swayed by feelings and more given to immediacy than men. Feelings and sensuality make us subject to time. Consciousness(even some of the more conscious forms of emotions) lifts us above time, or rather, we become time itself when we become conscious, logical, rational, or whatever else you want to call it. Marriage is(or originally was) an attempt to give form to the chaotic sexual relations - to place them in a conscious relationship to the individual.

[Ryan Rudolph]

There's been a lot of generalizations proposed here, but I think there is quite a spectrum of behavior for both genders, and I myself am guilty of making some generalizations that may not have the merit I think they do.

Cory,

A man rarely abandons a woman, but a woman often abandons a man. Most breakups are initiated by women.

I think this is because men would rather try to hide secret relationships, while they have no attraction or desire to be with their present partner. Its usually fear of losing the known that causes men to stay in dead relationships. However, 'rarely' is a strong word, I think it happens more often than you are letting on. For instance: in my family alone, there are two single mothers who have a difficult time getting support payments from fathers who made the decisiont to leave. Of course, the relationship was dysfunctional from both parties, but the males made the decision. One behavior I have observed is that the men and women develop a hatred for each other, and in the case I observed the man took out his hatred on the children, to get back at the woman. This male actually stopped paying for a daughter's car payment that he paid for when he was with the mother, and he did so, to make her use her money. Both genders are generally really selfish with their money, and if men feel they no longer have control of the situation, hatred results, which can be directed towards the children as well.

Men are usually monogamous, and with rare gifts: polygamous. Women, when beautiful and cunning enough, are generally hypergamous.

I think the hypergamous nature of women is slowly eroding as they become more independent and bring in their own incomes. And the pretty middle class women with incomes still want productive men, but the degree of their success is becoming less important. As long as he can bring in enough to collectively allow them to run a household, a growing number of educated modern women these days take a much more relaxed approach towards a man's income. On the other spectrum - Just examine any low income area in the city, and you will observe many couples where the man bring in little or no money.

There are also many women who if they feel they are loved, will put less emphasis on income level, and those who do not feel loved, but stay, often put more emphasis on income level.

And then there are the women who stay in horrible relationships no matter what happens. They stay through physical and mental abuse, substance abuse, and all sorts of things. However, from what I have learned is that women will leave immediately if they discover infidelity, but stay through all sorts of other horrible problems.

Both genders can be the loyal dog type.

From my experience, less than half of the women I was with ever even mentioned my level of income as a concern, and those ones were usually the model beauty queen types, with a low intelligence, and a sketchy past. Many times, if a woman grew up in poverty or instability at home, this will increase her drive to seek out a man who makes a large income. I have also observed that the women who have a strong desire to reproduce where the reproductive instinct is strong, but they are unsuccesful, then the result is they seek out a man to make up the difference for what they are lacking.

The point is that nature creates a lot of variety for both genders, and many of these generalizations are limited in giving the full picture of the complexity of modern life.

As far as the marriage as a contract, It think it should be abandoned in favor of common law contracts. The marriage and divorce business is a huge money grab for lawyers, and the same contract could be agreed to verbally by interested parties. Abandoning the marriage ideal would also cause women and men to adopt a more realistic attitude towards living each other over time.

[Carmel]

Getting up in the morning is oppressive to me, but that doesn't mean I don't get up. Women don't understand the concept of a contract - a timeless logical condition dictating the relationship of two people to each other - which is why they feel no strong need to stay in a marriage.

You're living in a fantasy land. If a man is physically, psychologically or emotionally abusive to a woman, or cheats on his wife, as 55% of men do. He, in essence, has already broken the contract. She has every right to seek a divorce under those circumstances, as does he if the reverse were true.

jupiviv:
Yes, but why does it mean I'm living in a fantasy land? I never said men don't break contracts.

Carmel:
So what are you implying? that men understand contracts, yet break them anyway? I don't really buy that, but let's say that's true for the sake of argument. That's even worse as it implies wilfull intent to harm by disobeying the contract, as opposed to unintentional harm caused by not fully understanding the ramifications of the contract.

Furthermore, why would a man who supposedly understands contracts enter into one, knowing that the other party doesn't what the contract entails? Your hypothesis makes no sense whatsoever.

jupiviv:
Also, where did you get the 55%/45% figures from?

Carmel:
From HBO Productions. I watched a documentary series on HBO about this subject, and that's the figure they consistently used. I did a quick google search and several sources were using 60% men, 40% women have extramarital affairs. That's as much energy as I'm willing to put into it, but if you'd care to research it yourself, feel free.

jupiviv:
I think women cheat far more than men in their minds, the reason being that the faithfulness to the contract is lacking in them. If you want proof for this - this fact itself cannot be proven, but it can be inferred from other things.

Carmel:
You're contradicting yourself. If a "fact" can't be proven, then it isn't a fact, but merely an opinion, one that I don't happen to agree with. I think men cheat more in their minds, as well as in reality. As Jimmy Carter once famously said in a Playboy interview when asked if he had ever cheated on his wife: "No, but I have lusted in my heart." I think alot of men experience that due to the fact that men's sex drive is more immediate than women's.

jupiviv:
Essentially - that women in general are more swayed by feelings and more given to immediacy than men. Feelings and sensuality make us subject to time.

Carmel:
Women may, in general, be more easily swayed by emotion, but as I stated above, men's sex drive is more immediate than women's, so men are typically more easily swayed by sensual stimuli than women are.

jupiviv:
Consciousness(even some of the more conscious forms of emotions) lifts us above time, or rather, we become time itself when we become conscious, logical, rational, or whatever else you want to call it. Marriage is(or originally was) an attempt to give form to the chaotic sexual relations - to place them in a conscious relationship to the individual.

Carmel:
That's an idealised version of marriage, but there were also practical reasons for marriage as I've already stated. There's also a more cynical view of marriage in that was historically used to oppress women by giving men legal rights over them, but I think we had this same conversation awhile back, so I don't see the point in rehashing it.

[jupiviv]

Yes, but why does it mean I'm living in a fantasy land? I never said men don't break contracts.

So what are you implying? that men understand contracts, yet break them anyway?

Yes. Why don't you buy that? Don't you know about anything called "immorality"? However, to be immoral, you have to first know what morality is. Women are amoral, since they don't have any conception of morality in the first place.

That is why they can't really be said to be "cheating", because that would imply they know they are doing something wrong.

I don't really buy that, but let's say that's true for the sake of argument. That's even worse as it implies wilfull intent to harm by disobeying the contract, as opposed to unintentional harm caused by not fully understanding the ramifications of the contract.

I don't think it's necessarily "worse" than amorality.

Furthermore, why would a man who supposedly understands contracts enter into one, knowing that the other party doesn't what the contract entails?

Because he doesn't know that the other party doesn't know. Men in general have absolutely no desire to understand women, so they simply impose their own ideas onto women minds, and women don't object to it much.

If a "fact" can't be proven, then it isn't a fact

A fact, by definition, is something that already has been proven. That is what makes it a fact, and not an opinion. So it's impossible to prove facts, because that would be like boiling boiled water. However, people can lie about facts, or make mistakes, or see things differently from other people. In those cases, what should be done is to see whether the thing that the fact is about is real or not(this is why I said that the fact can be inferred from other things.) And if other people claim to see things differently, then they must show why they see things differently, in which case their viewpoint would also be a fact.

It is a fact that a person's lack of faithfulness to a contract would lead to that person not being faithful to any contract they might be involved in. You may dispute the fact that women are not faithful to contracts in the logical sense(as distinguished from men), owing to the fact that the don't have any understanding of the true concept of a contract, which in turn is due to the fact that they don't understand logic(and therefore also not morality). But this is based on my(admittedly very short) experience of women, and also that of a few other people.

Women may, in general, be more easily swayed by emotion, but as I stated above, men's sex drive is more immediate than women's, so men are typically more easily swayed by sensual stimuli than women are.

I don't understand what you mean by men's sex drive being "more immediate". I doubt even you understand what you mean by it.

I also don't know how you define emotion, and how you distinguish between emotions and sensual stimuli.

Consciousness(even some of the more conscious forms of emotions) lifts us above time, or rather, we become time itself when we become conscious, logical, rational, or whatever else you want to call it. Marriage is(or originally was) an attempt to give form to the chaotic sexual relations - to place them in a conscious relationship to the individual.

That's an idealised version of marriage, but there were also practical reasons for marriage as I've already stated.

No the reasons I stated were(probably) the practical reasons for marriage. Ideally, the practice of marriage shouldn't have been established, and should be abolished now, because it's ultimately illogical(as is the idea of a contract).

There's also a more cynical view of marriage in that was historically used to oppress women by giving men legal rights over them

My mother also historically oppressed me(and still does) by forcibly waking me up at 6 in the morning.

[Carmel]

Forget it, jupiviv.

I can see that your post has "ego" written all over it. It's really quite nonsensical in too many ways to mention. Go back and look at it tomorrow and maybe you'll see what I mean...or maybe you won't...

peace

[Nick]

Let me be as precise and to the point as possible...

It was the oppression of women by men that led to the rise of civilization by allowing men to think about "higher things", and not just sex and providing food. Before the rise of civilization, children took their mother's surname, (usually because they never knew who the father was because everyone was fucking everyone), men were simply cogs in the machine that provided for women doing both the hunting and the gathering, and women could lie around being worshiped as gods because they give birth to the children. Child birth was not yet understood at this time and was seen as both mysterious and miraculous.

So why didn't civilization arise in these matriarchal societies, and why does civilization appear to be on the decline in western societies, coinciding with the liberation of women and sexuality? Marriage, amongst many other things, was probably the most important tool in the oppression of women, and history shows that marriage first appeared in Mesopotamia, i.e. the cradle of civilization, which I don't see as just a coincidence. And interestingly enough, it is only the most primitive societies in the present where matriarchies still exist, such as the indigenous tribes of Africa, Asia, and South America.

As has been said on this forum many times over, women, lacking the masculine spirit found mostly in men, were not able to forge a path to higher thinking outside their basic emotional and instinctual desires. So once men began to oppress women and stopped seeing them as objects of worship, they were free to think about and explore things like math, science, philosophy, and logic, all of which led to the rise of civilization. Ironically all that time spent facing nature's harshest challenges in place of women resulted in a mind more capable of entering higher realms of consciousness. Now I don't want this to be seen as me advocating that we go back to oppressing women because it has obvious limitations as evidenced by our current state, but I definitely think it means that society as a whole needs to directly address the Sex and Character of our species before history adds another civilization to it's record books.

That said, we can only ride the momentum of previous generations for so long, and as the hyper-sexualization (an expression of man's worship and desire for women as she once again takes center stage) of nearly everything in our society increases, it's only a matter of time until we're back back in the stone-age. I honestly can't think of a single thing that males do without women in mind aside from playing sports and video games, and they don't even realize it! Such is the power of Woman. Civilization requires thoughtful men, and thoughtful men are a rare breed when it's all about her.

[Kelly Jones]

That's a good summary, Nick.

The main reason women have been "oppressed", though I prefer to call it controlled, is because they are more concerned about feelings. Whenever I get objections to the idea of wise misogyny, it's not over the principle of finding the right psychological tools to become wise. Never that. So that principle is accepted. And it's rarely a matter of sex differences, when I investigate deeper.

The complaints are over feelings. People are indignant. They are angry. They fear they are being deliberately and maliciously hurt by being told they're inferior, inhuman, or somehow made abject.

The problem is, these feelings keep interfering with their perception. It is very hard to reason with a person who has emotion-driven prejudices, because they continue to perceive through the prejudice. They have a total psychological blockage, because of their feelings. Emotions are pretty useless things. Yet they are very powerful, swamping the mind, preventing the flexibility and freedom of real thought.

People focus so much on their identity or reputation, that they can't strengthen the will to truth. They don't respect the course of understanding. They don't give justice to the meaning and nature of the principles they're supposed to investigate carefully.

While men are still prone to that blindness, and to saying they value reason while not putting it into practice, I don't think they are anywhere near as blind as women - and the feminine type of person. When I come across a more rational female, she still wants feelings to be respected most: it is not that justice to concepts and principles that ultimately drives her, but justice to her reputation, or rather the reputation of those authorities she depends on, and to their social security.

But social stability is a corpse. No progress relies on social stability, but on understanding principles - and, ultimately, the relationship to truth.


.

[Carmel]

Nick:
It was the oppression of women by men that led to the rise of civilization by allowing men to think about "higher things", and not just sex and providing food. Before the rise of civilization, children took their mother's surname, (usually because they never knew who the father was because everyone was fucking everyone), men were simply cogs in the machine that provided for women doing both the hunting and the gathering, and women could lie around being worshiped as gods because they give birth to the children. Child birth was not yet understood at this time and was seen as both mysterious and miraculous.

Carmel:
A small correction here Nick, it was the women who did the gatherering. Do you ever watch the National Geographic channel? Even today, women have a better sense of color acuity than men and evolutionary biologists theorize that this physical characteristic evolved as a result of hunter/gatherer period. This increased sense to distinguish color difference allowed the women to spot the berries more quickly. Women weren't lying around being worshipped as you contend.

Nick:
So why didn't civilization arise in these matriarchal societies, and why does civilization appear to be on the decline in western societies, coinciding with the liberation of women and sexuality?

Carmel:
Why do you say Western civilization is on the decline? Compare today's standard of living to that of a strictly patriarchal period over the past few centuries. The standard and quality of living have been steadily increasing as women's rights have increased. You need to compare and contract instead of making blanket statements.

Nick:
Marriage, amongst many other things, was probably the most important tool in the oppression of women, and history shows that marriage first appeared in Mesopotamia, i.e. the cradle of civilization, which I don't see as just a coincidence. And interestingly enough, it is only the most primitive societies in the present where matriarchies still exist, such as the indigenous tribes of Africa, Asia, and South America.

Carmel:
Do you know what the word "matriarchal" actually means? Those societies weren't matriarchal, in fact, they still perform female genital mutilation in many African countries, an archaic religious practice. It's a blatant form of oppression against women. Even today, the countries that still oppress women, i.e. in Africa, among others, aren't producing quality scientists or philosophers by comparison to the countries where all citizens have equal rights.

Nick:
That said, we can only ride the momentum of previous generations for so long, and as the hyper-sexualization (an expression of man's worship and desire for women as she once again takes center stage) of nearly everything in our society increases, it's only a matter of time until we're back back in the stone-age. I honestly can't think of a single thing that males do without women in mind aside from playing sports and video games, and they don't even realize it! Such is the power of Woman.

Carmel:
Men will always worship women. You don't really think that is ever going to change do you?

As for "Mother Nature" and "Father Time" themselves, They don't care one iota what age we're living in, whether the stone age, steel age, industrial or technological age nor do they care what happens to this tiny little speck of dust we call earth.

Carry on with your wordly matters and attachments ...I have my mind on higher sights.

[Nick]

The complaints are over feelings. People are indignant. They are angry. They fear they are being deliberately and maliciously hurt by being told they're inferior, inhuman, or somehow made abject.

The problem is, these feelings keep interfering with their perception. It is very hard to reason with a person who has emotion-driven prejudices, because they continue to perceive through the prejudice. They have a total psychological blockage, because of their feelings. Emotions are pretty useless things. Yet they are very powerful, swamping the mind, preventing the flexibility and freedom of real thought.

Yes this is mostly my experience as well when discussing these things with others. One technique I've found that gets people to be at least a little receptive about the nature of sex and character is to point out the obvious bullshit that goes on in human sexual relationships. Everyone has a story about some fucked up relationship they had with somebody in the past, and they all at least intuitively sense the insanity of it. From there you might be able to build up to a point where you can make your case some what palatable to the average person.

[Nick]

A small correction here Nick, it was the women who did the gatherering. Do you ever watch the National Geographic channel? Even today, women have a better sense of color acuity than men and evolutionary biologists theorize that this physical characteristic evolved as a result of hunter/gatherer period. This increased sense to distinguish color difference allowed the women to spot the berries more quickly. Women weren't lying around being worshipped as you contend.

Gathering encompasses more than just an after dinner desert such as tasty little berries. Gathering also encompasses things like firewood, ore, and the like. Just look at a woman's body. It's obvious she never had to face nature's harshest elements or do any hard labor.

Why do you say Western civilization is on the decline? Compare today's standard of living to that of a strictly patriarchal period over the past few centuries. The standard and quality of living have been steadily increasing as women's rights have increased. You need to compare and contract instead of making blanket statements.

The standard of living was increasing, until the 1970's (right after what some might say was the culmination of woman's liberation in the late 1960's). A new statistic was just released stating that nearly 50 million people in the United States now live in poverty. Also, people now work longer hours, wages have decreased since 1979 relative to inflation, and the number of people who have access to higher education and healthcare is on the decline as the working class struggles to make end's meet and the rich continue to get richer on their backs. Not to mention the increasing threat of all out nuclear war because of disastrous foreign policies and arm's dealing. More money is spent on weapons than all other discretionary programs combined. Too bad we can't eat our guns!

This is a result of men being less thoughtful because they are overwhelmed and unable to interact with modern liberated women in any rational or structured way. It completely consumes him and leaves little of his mental resources for anything else. He's now forced to either become an untrustworthy outcast, or worship at the alter of Woman if he wishes to be seen as an acceptable, descent, and honorable human being. Most men not surprisingly choose the latter.

Do you know what the word "matriarchal" actually means? Those societies weren't matriarchal, in fact, they still perform female genital mutilation in many African countries, an archaic religious practice. It's a blatant form of oppression against women. Even today, the countries that still oppress women, i.e. in Africa, among others, aren't producing quality scientists or philosophers by comparison to the countries where all citizens have equal rights.

My point is that matriarchies only exist in the most primitive cultures in the present, pointing to the fact that matriarchies have never led to civilization. Secondly, as I stated earlier, oppressing women has some obvious limitations and is not a strategy I would advocate if we want people to become more thoughtful.

Men will always worship women. You don't really think that is ever going to change do you?

Either men are going to have to stop worshiping women or our species is doomed to premature extinction. Only time will tell which comes first.

As for "Mother Nature" and "Father Time" themselves, They don't care one iota what age we're living in, whether the stone age, steel age, industrial or technological age nor do they care what happens to this tiny little speck of dust we call earth.

I care.

Carry on with your wordly matters and attachments ...I have my mind on higher sights.

I sense some indignation in this comment, and I've noticed others have pointed this out to you as well in some of your other responses. Why is that?