Sexual ethics
I haven't found anything akin to an "one-size fits all" view, howevr here are some of the aggregate views and "wisdom of the crowd" on the subject.
1. Many, whether coming from a 'religious' or simply a cultural perspective, would argue that something akin to a mature marriage or relationship is better than simply "hooking up" as a lifestyle pursuit (from every purely mature or practical perspective, I'd argue that it is; as a simple example, if a maried or dating couple had sex 3 times a week, that would be over 150 times a year, and they could get to know and trust each other and explore more personal preferences, 'kinks', fantasies and so on - while a person who only sleeps with people for 1 night, would have to be able to find 150 partners a year, every year for the rest of their life, as well as their being a lack of trust or healthy personal boundaries in sleeping with a stranger, unplanned pregnancy risks, and so on).
Much as from a cultural perspective with or without specifically invoking "religion" most would find that monogamy is superior to polygamy or 3rd world marital practices (often associated with ills such as lack of legal rights for women, child marriages, and things of that nature).
At the same time, "hooking up" is something of an adolescent rite of passage for young men and women (ideally with the notion that they will eventually 'mature' into a serious, adult relationship), and the other extreme, such as advocating strict virginity or abstinence until marriage would come across as 19th century Victorian puritanism.
(This would most likely be perceived as the case when applied to 'men' as opposed to women, however in practice, it's something of a myth regardless, as most wants in a 1st world country are higher mental wants, and not purely 'physical or sexual' ones to begin with, or again then polygamy would be more 'beneficial' when it comes to producing children, with monogamy itself being a manifestation of 'higher mental wants', and pursuit of better quality marriages, relationships, and so forth at the expense of simply having as much 'sex' or making as many 'children' as possible - to some extent or degree this is just common sense, and people 'know this', but more or less take it for granted, whether one invokes culture, or even something 'religious', such as the Bible and St. Paul's assertion that not all men or people should necessarily marry or have children).
--
Likewise, other conflicting views on the topic exist - for example, if one were to pursue "hooking up" as a lifestyle choice, many would object to this, claiming that it is "using" each other, or often more specifically a woman.
However as the converse to the above, some might argue that advocating such as view is also archaic, misogynist, anti-feminst, and so on and so forth, since it effectivley treats a woman like a child, or implies that as a legally consenting adult, she cannot nor or should not be able to decide who she has sex with; the same argument could be used regards of the sex or gender discussed, however generally it comes up more often in the specific context of women;
(Aguments in the context of pornography or sexually-oriented entertainment such as strip clubs or exotic dancing would generally follow a similar vein).
1. Many, whether coming from a 'religious' or simply a cultural perspective, would argue that something akin to a mature marriage or relationship is better than simply "hooking up" as a lifestyle pursuit (from every purely mature or practical perspective, I'd argue that it is; as a simple example, if a maried or dating couple had sex 3 times a week, that would be over 150 times a year, and they could get to know and trust each other and explore more personal preferences, 'kinks', fantasies and so on - while a person who only sleeps with people for 1 night, would have to be able to find 150 partners a year, every year for the rest of their life, as well as their being a lack of trust or healthy personal boundaries in sleeping with a stranger, unplanned pregnancy risks, and so on).
Much as from a cultural perspective with or without specifically invoking "religion" most would find that monogamy is superior to polygamy or 3rd world marital practices (often associated with ills such as lack of legal rights for women, child marriages, and things of that nature).
At the same time, "hooking up" is something of an adolescent rite of passage for young men and women (ideally with the notion that they will eventually 'mature' into a serious, adult relationship), and the other extreme, such as advocating strict virginity or abstinence until marriage would come across as 19th century Victorian puritanism.
(This would most likely be perceived as the case when applied to 'men' as opposed to women, however in practice, it's something of a myth regardless, as most wants in a 1st world country are higher mental wants, and not purely 'physical or sexual' ones to begin with, or again then polygamy would be more 'beneficial' when it comes to producing children, with monogamy itself being a manifestation of 'higher mental wants', and pursuit of better quality marriages, relationships, and so forth at the expense of simply having as much 'sex' or making as many 'children' as possible - to some extent or degree this is just common sense, and people 'know this', but more or less take it for granted, whether one invokes culture, or even something 'religious', such as the Bible and St. Paul's assertion that not all men or people should necessarily marry or have children).
--
Likewise, other conflicting views on the topic exist - for example, if one were to pursue "hooking up" as a lifestyle choice, many would object to this, claiming that it is "using" each other, or often more specifically a woman.
However as the converse to the above, some might argue that advocating such as view is also archaic, misogynist, anti-feminst, and so on and so forth, since it effectivley treats a woman like a child, or implies that as a legally consenting adult, she cannot nor or should not be able to decide who she has sex with; the same argument could be used regards of the sex or gender discussed, however generally it comes up more often in the specific context of women;
(Aguments in the context of pornography or sexually-oriented entertainment such as strip clubs or exotic dancing would generally follow a similar vein).
Comments (257)
Monogamy is preferrable to polygamy, because it promotes a stable society. Polygamy by definition leaves society with a lot of incels, which mean aggression and instabiliy, which is not something you want. (Unless you want a warrior society bent bent on external aggression, in which case large amounts of incels are desirable.)
The "llegal rights for women" and "child marriage" issues are related to modern, enlightened values like equality in front of the law.
lol, incels.
Actually, from what I've heard historically, is that in some ancient societies, "low status" males were made into eunuchs and forced to serve in the king's harem.
As far as your other posts, from what I've seen, meritocratic ideals for men and women have existed in some for or another in a diverse variety of societies, as well today, varying by a complex multitude of circumstances, such as socio-economic, familial, legal, personal, intellectual, and so on.
(I believe that Plato is considered a classical example of the meritocratic ideal, much as how women in different positions of influence, intelligence, and so forth, ideally above and beyond the 'bare minmum' standards of whatever societies they are a part of, which aren't and never were that 'high' on average regardless of male or female, women such as Marie Curie or Joan of Arc being exemplars and not the "average" woman of their day and age necessarily, much as is the same today, such as in regards to a woman lawyer of some signfiicant reknown, education, familiar circumstances and whatnot, nor similar circumstances in regards to "average" males versus more culturally exemplar examples of past or present.)
I'd have to read up on more history with an emphasis on women, however I'm inclined to harken back to women such as Marie Curie, or others, such as Greek women philosophers of some reknown, as well as the idealization of women in the incarnations of 'goddess',
I have enjoyed both a promiscuous and a monogamous lifestyle, and I have to tell you: the monogamous is boring but safe and life is easier; the promiscuous is frought with adversity, instability, and money troubles, but it's infintely more exciting and enjoyable.
Yeah, you can find a partner whom you can trust and get to know, and while I don't condone hooking up for myself (I won't interfere with the choice by others for themselves), a serial monogamy is WAAAY preferable to a single long-term relationship. In serial, you can date as long as you find your partner exciting and vice versa. In marriage, in most of them, there is no sex to speak of after the fifth year. It is not exciting, you get so fucking incredibly bored with her or him, that you cringe even when they touch you or you touch them. And of course you fantasize about thy neighbour's ass.
For those who still can afford a choice, I suggest you go out and sow your wild oats, (without producing a baby, fer crying out loud), then when old age sets in and the cart of life gets too heavy to be pulled just by one person, then hook up with a contemporary of your age group, and waltz to the grave hand-in-hand.
From a personal perspective, monogamy, monoandry, is preferred if your goal is to nurture your offspring with any degree of certainty to maturity.
From a personal perspective, polygamy or philandering, is preferred because you have a chance to produce offspring which has a chance to propagate your genes (the basic idea behind procreation).
From a personal perspective, polyandry and slutting around is preferred, because your offspring, if begotten to a wide variety of males, will have a diversity in DNA which alone provides a better survival chance for the propagation of the mother's DNA, which is the basic idea behind procreation.
But now I've been with Nancy for 38 years. We met on a blind date set up by a friend. Haven't been apart since...and I would not change any of the memories I have of this monogamous relationship.
ASIDE: We've been together, as I mentioned, for 38 years...and have never married. We've both just felt that no governmental agency or church need be involved in our relationship.
http://historytothepublic.org/empress-wu-and-her-male-concubines-concubinus/
I'm not sure I totally buy into that one as a universal, but then again every serious take on marriage or monogamy as an ideal, even including Biblical ones (in which marital problems and conflicts are a recurring theme) is that it would require a lot of work and sacrifice, with many marriages or relationships not being part of the ideal, and of course presently and historically it also served and serves a pragmatic purpose, not solely a "Romantic" one (which seems more of a notion from Rousseau than anything within the realm of legal philosophy or even religion, such as quasi-deterministic themes of 'love at first sight' and whatnot).
The main ethics would be the notion of 'hooking up', especially as a lifestyle goal, even if one doesn't specifically invoke 'religion', generally monogamy is viewed as better ideal, and one which isn't rife with potential sensationalist media controversies which make rounds on the media as of late. (The cultural and legal philosophies surrounding monogamy as an ideal in 1st world countries as opposed to polygamy or 'hooking' up).
One that on, arguments will tend to either take the vein of it being 'using' one or the other person (generally the woman), or the other extreme, in which such an attitude is archaic, anti-intellectual and anti-feminist, and treating a woman (or men) like a helpless child who as a consenting adult can't or shouldn't choose who she has sex with.
The natural birthrate being roughly 50/50, that by definition leaves a number of male incels, unless you limit the polygamy to the ruler only. And as I pointed out, male incels are source of aggression and instability i a society. You don´t want large amount of testosterone sloshing around, if you want stability.
Quoting god must be atheist
Sure, that the personal perspective. Obviously, you are male. We can´t escape our biolo
I 'hooked up' a lot when I was younger, but honestly my attitude and worldview on it was that it was more of an adolescents insecurity than anything else.
As of right now, I would honestly prefer playing a video game than trying to 'pick up' a woman at a strip club.
Even then, as per the higher mental wants notion, I don't totally buy that, I honestly believe any male who "has" to be a virgin is a pretty rare phenomenon, and that in the case of 'incels' it's some type of mania or mental disturbance (e.x. such as thinking he's entitled to marry Hollywood actresses instead of a more 'ordinary' girl' or whatnot).
As far as history goes, I can't say for certain, but supposedly many notable intellectuals such as Adam Smith or Einstein never married, but obviously applied themselves to creative or higher-level mental achievements, and weren't known to be malcontents or female celebrity stalkers akin to the "incels". (The same is also true of women like Emily Dickenson).
Again, assuming everything was purely "sexual" or "physical" then I'd venture there would have been no sciences or innovations whatsoever, given how much "time" that would have taken away from more important tasks, such as making 10 babies with 10 different partners, and so on.
China obviously outdoes America and Europe in terms of physical procreation, however most of US wouldn't want to lower the intellectual level to that of a "3rd world country" simply for the sake of "more children", "larger families" and so on.
No. It is simply demographics. If the more powerful males all appropriate several females, that leaves a large number of incels in the population by definition. That does not mean they are all virgins (after all, there will always be prostituion), and that does not mean they all react the same. But on average, a surplus of unanswered male sex drive in society is not a good thing, unless the society is at war.
There really is no disagreement about this amont sociologists. I am not stating something original here. (Rather something pretty obvious, once look at society instead of just your personal life.)
As far as history and other aspects are concerned (such as Maslov's hierarchy of needs), what your saying may be a trend, but obvious isn't everything, given that in today's society, higher mental wants take precedent over purely "physical" ones.
Much as for a sociologist to even elect to become a sociologist to begin with, they are taking time in pursuit of those 'higher mental goals' away from time which could be spent fathering more children (such as the philosophy of something akin to a fundamentalist Mormon compound might be).
For that matter, not every man or woman has the same 'sex drive' (e.x. I've heard of plenty of couples who simply 'got tired' of having sex but stayed married or together, without some overt need to have sex every day, in some cases the complaints were even reversed, in which the wife or woman complained of the man's low sex drive).
On this one, as far as getting tired of the other person goes, can you elaborate more? Is it something purely 'physical', such as a desire to have sex with more women or 'newer' women, or is it related to personality, characteristics, getting along or having common interests, or things of that nature?
Good for you! I've been with my beautiful girl for four years now, but then again, I've grown old. It's good to warm my bones beside the fire.
I think, all of the above.
Of course, what you don't know, does not hurt you. People who got married at seventeen and lived a lifetime together, will never miss the taste for change.
A bit like indoor cats. They are EXTREMELY happy and satisfied with life. They love life. Until... one day they get to go outside. The sights, the smells, the sounds, will drive them scared... then they come in and ponder about that... and the next time they venture out, they are hooked for life on the outside.
I did say that I was speaking about society a large. Of course there are large individual differences.
Are you saying that you think there is no basic difference between male and female sexuality?
If we use Robert Wright's book on evolutionary psychology as the metric, the main difference is that men's sex drive tends to be geared toward 'more partners', while women's tends to be oriented to the specific things she receives from one or more partner (e.x. stability or support in one partner, or romance and excitement in another, assuming she can't get it in both at the same time).
As far as how "sex" drive might be defined beyond that, you're free to give your thoughts.
Homosexuality. That takes care of 15% of the overflow of testosterone. Natural homosexuality.
I'm not sure it's totally reducible to that, though a pragmatic aspect in marriage and relationships isn't deniable.
As far as other takes on it, such as a purely biological take, for example, I'm not totally sure if there could be any meaningful difference in one partner or another other than the most minute (given that one's physical organs can't even tell a hand from a vagina, lol). Unless the issue was some marital or relational conflict in which the couple stopped having regular sex with one another.
That is around 3% naturally, so not much of a solution, I am afraid.
In practice, it's a subjective decision and innate. As per thinkers in regards to the subject such as spectrum's which people lie on rather than arbitrary dichotomies, and of course there is no evidence that the innate things which might manifest themselves in homosexual activity 'inherently' or necessarily exist in any one or specific person more than any other, and on or a their own subjective judgments or discretions upon which said identifications are made to begin with, nor the theories and practices about or in regards to what 'supposedly is, and the practical realties upon which the actual makings of said subjective judgments or decisions are predicated upon to begin with, thankfully there being nothing remotely akin to an 'exact science' on it to begin with, regardless of how minutiae of scientific or other datus might be used by one or another person to immediately and confirmationally biasedly infer one of many possible conclusions on or as to said subjects' matters to begins which.
In what practise? You are talking about jail? In a normal situation, absolutely not. Sex drive is biological, it is survival of our (any any other) ambisexual species. XY needs to combine with XX to produce the next generation.... it is a fact, as un-PC as that might be regarded today.
As long as we're speaking of two consenting adults, I don't think it can be said that "one person is using the other," since both are using each other. That is, after all, what they consented to.
Consenting adults can do a lot of things to each other that may be considered foolish, unproductive, etc., but I find it hard to imagine anything they can do to each other that is unethical, (assuming there are no other parties involved).
Things become different when one side is consenting with different expectations and the other side is aware of this. I.e. person A consents to sex with the expectation of a relationship, but person B wants nothing to do with them afterwards.
If person B was aware of person A's expectations beforehand, we're looking at a situation in which a person is willfully hurting another to fulfill their selfish desires and we're getting into the realm of unethical behavior.
Whether 'hook-up culture' is particularly helpful to the individual or society as a whole is a different question altogether, not necessarily connected to ethics, in my opinion. (but worth discussing)
I fail to see what you're referring to.
On the biological level, the impulses or impetuses have their roots there, I thought this was common sense to anyone who didn't somehow skip Kindergarden level biology to begin with.
But in practice, the actual selection of partners, preferential activities, and what "traits" said things are based on and so forth, is one's subjective judgment, based on a myriad of factors.
And from a purely biological perspective, it doesn't seem that the body, nor the "reptile" brain can even distinguish between a person's right hand and an actual vagina.
So again, this falls back on the monogamy argument, and how most relationship desires aren't reducible solely to the biological or purely 'physical', but are predicated on higher mental wants and institutions which make a 1st world country or civilization possible.
(For example, using birth control or "not cheating" on your spouse or partner, would be conscious mental or intentional efforts or goals which may ironically run contrary to the purely 'biological' ones, given that couples may still want to 'have sex' even when they're using birth control and the primary goal is physical intimacy rather than 'survival and procreation', or may decide not to cheat or have an affair, even though the "sex drive" does not distinguish between a man or woman one is married to, or physically attractive stranger, rather the mind does).
I did not say that there not all sorts of psychological overlays, which is given since we are complex mammals. But none of this would exist without the sex drive being there in the first place, which is the basis for it all, and which is purely biological.
And by the way, as you correctly say, a lot of this self-oriented behaviour like using birth control etc. runs counter to the biological basis, and will lead to the self-elimination of the more complex societies, as we stop to reproduce.
Like Oswald Spengler said: "When the ordinary thought of a highly cultivated people begins to regard 'having children' as a question of pro's and con's, the great turning point (for a civilization) has come."
I did not say that there not all sorts of psychological overlays, which is given since we are complex mammals. But none of this would exist without the sex drive being there in the first place, which is the basis for it all, and which is purely biological.
And by the way, as you correctly say, a lot of this self-oriented behaviour like using birth control etc. runs counter to the biological basis, and will lead to the self-elimination of the more complex societies, as we stop to reproduce.
[/quote]
Then your ideal living situation should be a fundamentalist Mormon compound in which 1st world luxuries such as... literacy, are a rare find, and grown men having 10 kids each with their ten 14-year old wives, were they were engaged to at the age of 10, should be your ideal of "civilization" and progress.
So when you're ready to more there, be sure to write us back.
And no, the reality is that an extremist view such as that "no one should have children" would be a ridiculous absurdism (e.x. the "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement).
But as far as I'm ware of, every society, ancient and modern has had debates and nuances about who and when people should have children, or the notion that some people possibly should have children, while others should not (even the Bible if you want to reference that, such as St. Paul's epistles).
Likewise, some form or measure of population control, or preventing some notion of "irresponsible" procreative activity has also been a hallmark of every civilization, ancient or modern (this pragmatic notion is likely part of the purpose which ancient, Iron Age laws such as "death penalty for adultery" likely served, as well as "low" status men who would probably be "incels" in today's world, being made in to eunuchs and forced to serve in the king or the queen's harem, rather than allowed to "exist" and subsist on anime porn addiction like they are today.
---
Basically, if the premise of your idea is that "civilization" is measured by sheer numbers or rates of procreation, sans any other legal, moral, cultural, or philosophical notions, to me that seems to be a bad overall measure of a "civilization" and as well as it's "existence" or cessation thereof could or should be measured.
I said nothing of the sort. Why do you put words in my mouth, like Kathy Newman in her famous "so you are saying...." interview with Jordan Petersen?
I simply pointed out the biological foundation of our sex drive. And that society depends on people having children... ideally 2.1 per couple. And that couples (i.e. monogamy) are a better choice to organize society than polygamy. I did not claim that there is no individual variety and room to accomodate that.
But at the current birthrates of e.g. 1.3 (Italy) and 1.5 (Japan), compared to what, 8 in Africa, just random examples, it is easy to see how Oswald Spengler is right. Human life span is about 80 years, depending on how we recreate society changes very rapidly indeed.
There is not need to get hysterial and make up exaggerated misquotes.
I said nothing of the sort. Why do you put words in my mouth, like Kathy Newman in her famous "so you are saying...." interview with Jordan Petersen?
What are the living conditions in Africa (I'm assuming sub-Saharan parts of Africa where polygamy and child marriage are practices); why would you want to emulate that? This isn't just about "race" is it?
Part of the reason of 'higher birth' rates is consequential, due to higher rates of infant morality (presumably, even in animals, this trend seems to be ingrained, with species that have relatively short livespans, such as hamsters, having "more offspring" than mammals such as elephants).
As far as how you measure the 'longetivity' of any civilization, aside from some reduction based on aggregate 'birth rates', I'd like you to elaborate more.
(For one, "Africa" isn't and historically hasn't been all one homogenized whole, with different cultures and civilizations; so how is this not purely about "race", prey tell?)
And in practice, what does aggregate population amount to if it isn't predicated on actual living conditions or civilizational hallmarks? (In sciences, for example, how much of the accomplishments within those fields would be attributable to "average population" demographics, or even to "low-level" employees in some industry with a "science" related job title, as opposed to a very rare Newton or an Einstein?
(For example, "China" has been around science the ancient times, however modern "China" as a nation is usually considered quite fundamentally different than "Ming Dynsasty" China, for example, taking the overall culture into account, not solely an averaging of population).
Why are you continuiing to obfuscate, change the topic, and put words in my mouth? I never said anything about emulating anything or race. I am simply pointing out that sex is biological, that making children is necessary for a population to continue, and that demographics matter.
Is it not possible to communicate without all this mind-reading, projection, misquoting, and strawmen??
Why are you continuiing to obfuscate, change the topic, and put words in my mouth? I never said anything about emulating anything or race. I am simply pointing out that sex is biological, that making children is necessary for a population to continue, and that demographics matter.
[/quote]
True, but how much "population" is needed and in the context of what goals, and how does "aggregate" population take into account other social or economic factors, such as populations of families relative to their means, and so on and so forth? Can you name any cuture in which "population controls", often in the context of means and sustainability, didn't exist in some form or another, and not even potentially stricter or more draconian than today (such as "death penalties" for adulteries in ancient cultures serving a pragmatic, population control purpose).
Unless something akin to the "voluntary human extinction movement" or a nihilistic worldview in which "no one" should have children was relevant, then the "entire" population would not disappear.
So, honestly, I don't see what the point in aggregate population comparisons between America, Europe, or Africa are, unless this is just some type of "population measuring contest"; can you provide any more depth to this issue?
Actually, it will. Simple demographic fact.
No, simply pointing to reality. In the short term (which you seem preoccupied with) demographics means nothing. In tne long term, it means everything. Populations which do not reproduce disappear, populations which do, take over. How do you think Kosovo went from being a Serbian province to an Albanian territory? (Just a random example)
Actually, it will. Simple demographic fact.
I think you misunderstand what I said.
That would only happen in a theoretical situation in which the entire population decided to stop having children, and in practice, as opposed to pure abstraction, that has never happened.
So no, I don't see Issac Newton or Adam Smith's decisions not to marry or to have children as somehow leading to the entire population doing this. Show me anytime in history in which an entire population "stopped having sex" or having children, and ceased to exist within 1 generation.
(And for that matter, most people would argue that contemporary cultures benefit more from Newton's personal sacrifices in regards to his higher mental achievement than they would have if he had simply decided to spend that time "having more children").
So you're talking about territorialism, not "culture".
I still have no idea what that has to do with "birth rates", a nation could become "annexed" by another nation, such as through war or colonization, even then I fail to see what "population" or birth rates have to do with this.
For example, India used to be a British territory, despite having a vastly larger population than Britain did, much as how in WWII Japan invaded China, which was vastly larger but allegedly inferior in military strength.
So even then, I don't see what "birth" rates" have to do with in practice, since in reality, a nation with the strongest military or economic might or technology isn't necessarily the nation with the highest population or birth rates.
Is nothing safe from ethicists?
Quoting god must be atheist
Lovely. I like that.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
One would hope that there are more choices than a strip club or a video game.
I'm 73. I enjoyed both a promiscuous gay sex life for 20 years and a settled gay relationship for 30 years. Both were satisfactory, but in different, and non-interchangeable ways. The pleasure of the hunt, the delight in anonymous sex (anonymous, but not meaningless, not exploitative; call it collaborative), the pleasure in home life with Bob, the mutuality of the close relationship -- it was all good.
Pairing up early in one's life, not having the experience of sharing in a variety of sexual styles, preferences, wishes, wants, etc., seems like an impoverished life.
What doesn't work well is freely having sex with different partners while trying to have a stable, one-on-one relationship. Some people can manage open and settled relationships (they have to be ambidextrous multitaskers) but 94.3% of the population can not manage it. It just doesn't end well, usually.
Fair enough...
Actually that last paragraph actually makes somewhat sense. Considering our entire society has turned to shit, your words of wizdom actually make sense for our present time. To some degree even successfully married people could be put on that spectrum. How many people do you see out in public fit the category "i dealt with 1 ,2 ,3 ,50 bad people and now i'm going to die with the person who is sitting next to me who actually will put up with me". David had 8 wives and some people claim the only two people who loved him alot were Jonathan and Bathsheba. As far as i know Bathsheba was his last wife and Jonathan died a while before that.
Just making sure you were just having fun by making up a very specific number here? Or were you referencing a particular study or something? I agreed with most of what you said, but was shocked (and interested) to think scientists could say that specifically the percent of people who can manage open and settled relationships??
No. You do not need "the entire population to stop having children" for a demographic trend leading to extinction. It is simple math. An average birth rate of 1.3 leads to an increasingly aged population and ultimately to extinction. It is not like I am making up a new topic here. This is very much debated topic for example in Western Europe (where the EU wants to change it with "replacement migration" and Japan.
I said nothing about terrorism, PLEASE stop making false claims. I mentioned Kosovo, because it is an example of a very rapid population shift because of birth rates. Kosovo had a purely Serbian population, in fact it was the Serbian heartland. Then, immigration plus the massive difference in birth rates between Serbian and Albanian families changed that to an Albanian population with a shrinking Serbian minority.
Those are all static details that depend on the society. I simply pointed to simply facts: 1) A below-replacement birth rate leads a shrinking population, and shrinking populations eventually reach zero. 2) a surplus of males in a human society is not good for the stability of said society.
I said none of the other things that you made up.
Seen in a more financial context, it may actually be the other way around.
Men may easily hand over 70% of their income for dependents. So, if he makes $100,000 per year, for example, then (without interest), that could represents $70,000 x 40 = $2.8 million of household funding at stake.
Sex is heavily intertwined with raw money.
If the counterparty in the deal has routinely been giving away sexual favours for free to other men, then why would this man agree to erode away $2.8 million on that person? Why shouldn't he be getting the sex for free too? If the other guys were more deserving of freebies for reasons of preference, then this counterparty in the deal should probably just go back to these other guys.
When money is at stake, the negotiations tend to become ruthless and merciless, while "feelings" do not matter in the least, because that is what capitalism is all about.
Money and "feelings" don't mix particularly well.
In other words, if someone has been giving sex away for free, this person may very well have to keep giving it away for free for the rest of their life. They can no longer become dependent on externally provided household funds, not even if they may at some point in their lives really need it.
How's that for an "impoverished" life? ;-)
I’m going to offer a slightly different perspective, if I may.
The human population at large is not in danger of extinction. To those who say sex is ‘necessary’ for a stable society in terms of procreation, I say that diversity and collaboration are more the hallmarks of stability (and sex) than population control in either direction. Don’t procreate as an obligation, or simply to prove that you can - we honestly don’t need more people. If you’re not serious about realising the future potential of humanity, then don’t just add to the numbers for the sake of it. Procreation is a responsibility, but it is NOT a right.
Monogamy, too, isn’t as necessary as one might think. Yes, it promotes a more stable society than polygamy, but only because a monogamous sexual relationship is less likely to promote an uneven perception of potential. If the laws of marriage or morality promote political imbalance (on the basis of gender, monetary exchange or birthright, for instance), then a sexual relationship negotiated on the freely agreed terms of all participating parties is always preferable to legality, however temporary.
Having said that, a healthy (ethical) sexual relationship within a marriage or without starts with integrity, patience and awareness - with yourself, first and foremost. If you’re only after a romp then don’t pretend otherwise, or vice versa, just for the sake of success. This goes for women and incels as much as players and frustrated husbands. Sex within a marriage - especially after twenty-odd years - is sometimes a matter of just helping each other unwind from the day. That’s okay. There can be comfort, intimacy and pleasure in the humble honesty of sharing a moment of vulnerability and need without fear or judgement. It’s what good sex is all about, really.
Finally, I have to say that I think anyone who believes sex is heavily intertwined with money mustn’t be doing it right...:razz:
For male biology, procreation is a privilege acquired through either violent combat ("mating season") or possibly through civilizing hacks such as marriage, if and when such civilizing hack still possibly functions.
Quoting Possibility
That depends on a social-political framework that may or may not exist, and that can easily stop existing from the one day to the other. When the Roman legions inevitably abandoned the fortifications on the Rhine in 406 AD, it was game over for the existing societal framework. There were no debates any longer. There were only sword fights.
The default situation in biology is the mating season. As I see it, it has the greatest legitimacy of all the various approaches because it is the default way in which biological life reaffirms itself. It just works.
Frankly, if we consider ourselves to be human beings, then our ‘default’ should NOT be biology. I think this is an issue for sexual ethics, because we continue to use this ‘default’ as an excuse for unconscionable behaviour, as if it can’t be helped. But I call bullshit. It CAN be helped, and the belief that human males are unable to control their violent and/or sexual behaviour without a strict socio-political framework is false. Some CHOOSE not to, and others have been able to leave that door open as a way (and a threat) to restore this illusion of control to which they believe themselves to be entitled.
‘Biology’ as you describe it only appears to work from the point of view of those with this illusion of control. As long as you can align yourself with the victors, and are grateful for whatever benefits such an association offers you, then you can kid yourself that you, too, have ‘control’ to some extent, for as long as the illusion holds out. If you’re on the outer, however, then you feel entitled, even encouraged, to engage in violent and/or sexual behaviour that somehow aligns or associates you with the victors.
But ‘survival of the fittest’ is not an accurate rendition of reality: it’s just a fairytale. Those moments where we feel attacked, betrayed, blindsided or taken for a ride are just reality catching up with us. If we’re prepared to let go of the fairytale and see reality for what it is, then we can be more prepared for it...
Are we? Biology is what it is. The socio-political framework is very different, depending on the time and place.
Quoting Possibility
Well yes, but whatever societal norms you have are BASED on biology.
Well, no - what has been referred to here as ‘biology’ is an interpretation, a reduction of information such that it endorses certain behaviour as ‘normal’.
I recognise and sympathise with this preference for an observable, measurable universality as a default. The uncertainty and relativity of what it is to be human requires that we pay more effort, energy and attention to determining and initiating action, and that we relate to the universe beyond our own immediate needs. The extent to which we advocate reverting to a biological or animalistic ‘default’ is a question of ethics.
Quoting Nobeernolife
I dispute that societal norms must be BASED on this interpretation of ‘biology’. That’s my point.
Maybe "based" is a misleading term. What I meant to say is that the biological facts are always there. Whatever societal norms are put on top of it can be very different, but the biological base is always there.
I don't know.
I’m not denying that biology exists. It’s the structure of societal norms put on top of a ‘base’ interpretation of biological ‘facts’ such as stated below that I’m arguing against:
Quoting alcontali
The biological FACT here is what exactly?
This is an interpretation of what we observe in nature in relation to understanding human pre-conscious response to stimuli. It isn’t a base: it’s only a handful of clues. Conscious action is not put on top of a base of stimulus-response - it restructures and influences not only how we respond, but also how we interpret stimuli beyond our immediate needs, which then gives us options on how we can respond. Self-consciousness enables us to not only question and critically evaluate these interpretations and subsequent responses (in theory as well as practice), but also to adjust our concepts, giving us options on how we can interpret stimuli more objectively in order to determine and initiate more ethical actions.
So an effective look at sexual ethics requires a restructuring of this ‘base interpretation’ to integrate our capacity for both conscious and self-conscious action. And I’m not necessarily talking only about stopping to think in the heat of the moment. The way we conceptualise ‘male biology’ in the first place might be a good place to start...
Without marriage, if either of you dies... they may be more involved than you'd like, and possibly in ways that you'd not imagined they could.
Most of my life I used to think that there is no way that two individuals could be compatible for marriage. Humans are extemely diverse, and problems and conflicts are unavoidable.
Then when I started to date my present lover, and we've been together for four years, I realized not only has my previous stance not true, but its opposite is even more true: ANY one can be compatible with anyone else, depending on HOW MUCH A PERSON IS WILLING TO COMPROMISE. It is a question of incompatibility vs patience. If as your patience (ability to accept the foibles and idiosyncrasies of the partner) increases, the compatibility can decrease, and vice versa.
My present partner is not suitable for me, in very many levels and facets of life, but SHE LOVES ME, and to me that's a greater treasure than anything else, and therefore I am not willing to stop getting her love.
There is nothing to conceptualize. It just is what it is.
Once the now disfunctional societal framework will have collapsed (the sooner the better) it will be impossible to resurrect it, because the men who will have fought in combat will simply not want it back.
We will probably have to contend with lots of marauding gangs but that is also not such a bad thing because these gangs will prefer to pick the easy targets and thus systematically eliminate the feminized pushovers. It would be a bad idea to put a stop to the cleansing chaos of the mating season too early.
When wasn't it shit?
Because there isn't one. Some people prefer monogamy, some polyamory, some celibacy. There's no such thing as "right" or "wrong", just "right for me" and "wrong for you" – and even that changes as people grow and change.
i have to head out soon so i'll respond back later. The suicide rate is much higher in the US than any other time and i wouldn't assume abortion doesn't count towards a high death rate.
I reckon that only a minority of people who are involuntarily celibate are aggressive. And of those that are, I doubt having sex is going to calm them down.
Not higher than any other time. Just the highest since 1942.
When was US society at its best? 2000 when the suicide rate was at its lowest?
In terms of economic growth and general happiness, yeah placing it in the year 2000 would be fair as a starting point to a discussion would be fair.....
Right on, Michael. We can't mix ethics with sexual preferences and lifestyles. There has been a lot of that, and it leads to strife, but not to "rehabilitation". Point in case: homosexuality. We now accept it as a viable lifestyle in sexual matters, but it took a long and ardorous battle in all spheres of human interest of the gay people to gain acceptance.
In my country, Canada,the prime minister in the nineteen-sixties declared, "the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" and abolished the part of criminal code dealing with I believe anal intercourse. (Butt-fucking, for those who don't speak Latin.)
The religious leaders have not got to the point yet, to declare, "God has no business in the bedrooms of the nation", and that is going to be a tough change, because gospel and other religious writings don't change with the times... only their interpretation, which can go wildly tangential.
Thank you, CS. Actually, we have pretty much determined that one of us WILL die. (In fact, we are certain that we will BOTH die at some point.)
Neither of us has an inordinate amount of material wealth and we both have wills. We each also have living wills and written end of life instructions.
It'll work out.
What would be the alternative, I wonder... "My death did not work out the way I planned." (-:
I like that. Gonna borrow it, if you give permission...or steal it if you don't! (Smiles)
Aside from Michael's response, your being factually incorrect, there is no measure of the "well-being" of a society. You took suicide rates to be the measure. But it does not measure how happy the happy are, and how happy the baseline "normals". There may be times when many commit suicide, but many also are happier than whatever.
So it is a difficult proposition to say this society is shit, it's not shit now, now it's shit again... shit, shit, shit, not shit, etc etc because there is no such thing as a measure of the well-being of a society.
Hehe. (-:
This is flattery enough to make me go through the day with a smile.
Canada: +0.00000001 on the happiness scale for the day.
Actually...
But you can't compare USA against USA at one point.
You're right in the fact, that given two different points, the same country could be measured against itself... how happy all individuals are against how happy they were at a different point.
But then again, there is the measuring problem... it is a subjective judgment, and it is decided by each participant themselves, because their feeling can only be measured by themselves. There are indicators, sure, but the indicators (visible to outside observers) may be misleading.
Such as "How many times this week you woke up with a smile, and how many times did you go to bed with a smile". This is objective, if given true answers, but the feeling is not measured.
They actually do that on page 39. The change from 2005-2008 to 2016-2018 was -0.446. 112th out of 132 for happiness increase. Definitely not good.
We British did have an increase of 0.137. Only 63rd though.
Quoting god must be atheist
How else would you measure happiness?
As someone who's definitely not a morning person I hope this isn't the measure of happiness. :wink:
So... I'm the gov stats person.
Mr. Michael: How happy did you feel on March 22, 2019, the whole day, and on April 14, the same year, and on September 44 of the same yearrrrr?
But if they only ask about today, or on the current day several times during the measurement period, they still need to ask the same people on every occasion, even ten years apart. The benchmark is going to be too sliding-sort up-and-down if you ask different people.
That can be countered by statistical spreading, but then you need a large sample.
And then in each of the 132 countries 2749 subjects (to make the sample return statisitically significant values) x number of interviews becomes so expensive, that the only people who have a smile will be the statiticians themselves... ("I can't believe how easy it is to make money by statistical methods... especially when you think everyone reads it as gospel, without knowing how valid the conclusions can be given the methods of data collection", thinks the data analyst.)
Both should be banned for use by the laymen, and only let be used by professionals.
I don’t doubt that your ignorant and primitive concept of ‘male biology’ seems to be working for you personally in your isolated little corner of the world. No doubt you’ve gotten yourself into a position where you can lash out with some well-placed aggression to bring everyone back in line, or exclude (ie. run away from) any part of the world that doesn’t pander to your every whim.
I think many older males with a similar concept of ‘male biology’ would have carved out a little niche for themselves in the world by now - a castle/fortress in which they can live out their days in relative ignorance of a reality that everyone else is gradually coming to terms with, despite how they like to think the world works.
Anyway, if anyone here is genuinely interested in discussing sexual ethics, let me know.
It is still civilized here; much more than what it will most likely soon be in your corner of the world. Look at what kind of guys are going to lead the wolf pack:
Quoting The Puerto Rican Mob/The Puerto Rican mafia
Maybe explain to those guys about "ignorant and primitive concepts of male biology". They are known to thoroughly molest loosely available "prey" on a catch-and-release base, which they usually don't kill but just leave behind for dead. Also, better don't count on the feminized pushovers to lift a finger, if in the meanwhile they still have one. That is the generalized nearby future of the West.
Sex drive. That is entirely biological.
And do not mix that with ethics. Ethics comes into play when society is involved.
You can recon all you want, but human biology is what it is. Testosterone makes for an entirely different psychological base then estrogen.
And underneath all the PC posturing I am pretty sure you instinctively know that, as does everyone.
On a societal level, the huge merit of monogamy is that it civilizes males.
OK, but how does that entail that men are made aggressive by celibacy?
Aggression is an innate part of the young males of our species, of course. Ever read Lord of the Flies?
Come one, I am not saying something revolutionary here.
So being aggressive has nothing to do with celibacy, it just has something to do with being male?
Quoting Nobeernolife
A work of fiction, not a documentary.
Michael: the Gallup poll uses a statistical technology that employs an "expected" answer.
This, I believe, renders the statistics very approximate, not accurate.
The reason is that to make the test useful, the test giver has to inform the tested person what the baseline is to which the testee must compare himself when giving an answer.
Tester:
Do you feel your are A extremely happy, B very happy C somewhat happey, D not happy or E extremely unhappy.
How does the testee know at what level the gradients lie? The tester's question presupposes that the testee realizes what the tester means by these categories -- and impossible task for the testee.
-----------
My sample question was extremely simplistic. But it is likely applicable to all questions asked on happiness.
It absoluty is connected to celibacy, unless the celibacy is by choice. We are not talking about monestaries here. Incel means INVOLUNTARY celibate.
A work of fiction that is very insightful. Want a a documentary? Visit a male prison.
It's only insightful if it's accurate, but what evidence do you have that it's accurate?
Aggressive people have a greater tendency to break the law and so go to prison, so obviously you're going to find lots of aggression in a prison.
Quoting Nobeernolife
You're not explaining the connection between involuntary celibacy and aggression. You're just asserting that there is one, and asserting that men are by nature aggressive (in which case whether or not they're celibate is irrelevant; men are aggressive even if sexually active).
There are lots of other issues in prison than testosterone. If you were correct, then conditions of prisoner relations in female prisons would not be so similar to those in male prisons.
Your response is not thought through.
I think it's worth noting that the term "incel" means a bit more than just being involuntarily celibate. The term "incel" tends to refer to the people who form an online community to talk about their celibacy, and quite often are toxic and complain about women and life and whatnot, but there are a lot more people in the world who are involuntarily celibate but have nothing to do with this community. They just live their lives and aren't these aggressive caricatures.
You're good then... just checkin'. Ya never know what people know...
:wink:
if you say so. I would argue being complacent about suicide shows a lack of concern for others.
If suicide does increase, any person who understands the way Mother's react to such things would understand where i am coming from. Most Mothers would prefer their child to die from some stranger than to die from suicide. Based on the above response below, you appear to be quite the snob.
My experience has been entirely in the gay male community where sex is still pretty much free, with very few if any entailments. Well, an occasional dinner as a seduction strategy, maybe a round or two of drinks, maybe living near by the place of assignation--all low cost gambits. But, you know, if you go to a public park and have sex, or pick up someone at a bar or with Grindr, or however, you have the sex and then part company. (Sometimes one hits it off with a trick and the two might end up living together--maybe for a long time.). This approach works for many (not all) gay men. (There's nothing preventing a return engagement with x, y, or z if they so wish.)
Male/male sex does not lead to pregnancy, of course, so sex can be casual and free. (This leaves aside questions of communicable diseases like HIV, gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes, HPV, parasites, and other fine products of the bacterial/viral world.). Fucking once or twice and then getting HIV early in the game is going to seem like a very bad deal, no matter how one slices it. That has happened to people. Gonorrhea isn't the readily treatable infection it was 40 years ago. Syphilis remains as susceptible to penicillin as it ever was, but if neglected is still a quite serious infection. Herpetic infections can be really unpleasant, as can HPV infections. HPV strain #16 and #18 are associated with cancer.
If one smoked, drank, had lots of sex, engaged in vigorous activities like running or long-distance biking, ate too well, was too lazy to get one's derrière off the couch, or any number of lifestyle choices, one can expect to have some negative consequences sooner or later. Millions are walking wounded because they partook of life's risky pleasures. Most would probably do it all over again if they had the choice.
Heterosexuals hoped that the sexual revolution would open the way to more satisfactory sex lives for both men and women. It didn't, in a number of ways, because women still have more to lose from casual sex than men do.
What makes celibacy a bad thing is not having a choice in the matter -- in the manner of prison inmates. If one is at large and finding that one can't find a partner for so much as a fast fuck, then one should probably undertake a major audit of one's methods, motivations, style, and... mental health in general.
My impression is that heterosexuals can usually find sex if they want to -- just like gays can, Get too fussy, too resentful, too hung up, and so on -- then the market dries up.
2000 was a better year. Are you aware of the very high rate of pedaphilia that we live? Rape is also as high if not higher than any other period. I guess you don't think abortion is a big deal? Think of all those aborted female babies that can't grow up and have abortions themselves. And oh yes most Mothers would prefer for some complete stranger to murder their child than for him/her to commit suicide themselves. Some of yall paint yourselves as caring but that very often is not the case.
I do read fiction, (being a one-time English major) but I haven't found it necessary to read fiction to discover that aggression is more likely in young men than in old men or women. And not all young men are testosterone time bombs, either.
People become aggressive usually as a response to social conditions. One finds reasonable aspirations blocked arbitrarily; one has suffered public humiliation; one is insecure in one's person and feels threatened; one is slightly deranged by being too hungry, angry, lonely, tired, slightly depressed, and so forth.
No, it isn’t entirely biological at all. Sex drive is the desire to have sex. Most factors that influence sex drive are social, psychological or medical. Testosterone is one of many influences, but you do realise that women have testosterone, too, don’t you?
I notice you’re justifying the position I’ve described, rather than disputing it. And with deflection, assumptions and more ignorance, no less.
Quoting alcontali
Am I supposed to be afraid of these guys? To run for cover? Don’t worry about me - I may be ‘feminine’, but I’m no ‘pushover’. We have our means. Might be a while, mind you, as I’m neither in the Americas nor Europe. Still, if you don’t think that similar levels of corruption, abuse and molestation occurs nearer to you (or me), then you’re deluding yourself. It’s nothing new, really. It’s just structured differently. In many cases, it only appears more ‘civilised’.
You might be surprised how much ‘respect’ these guys would show their own mothers, sisters and wives. They know how to treat both men and women with dignity and can exercise patience, integrity and self-awareness when it suits them. That they often don’t is a question of ethics, NOT biology.
The only means are men who are NOT feminized pushovers. So, yes, keep feminizing the boys and see where you will end up.
The practice of recruiting security personnel from the same male demographic that the cultural Marxists are incessantly seeking to feminize, is why the fortifications on the Rhine river were abandoned in 406 AD, allowing tribes of more virile, Teutonic "rapefugees" to cross in to Roman empire to molest and manhandle on a catch-and-release base whatever prey they could lay their big, breast-fondling hands on.
It's risen since 2013, but is lower than any period between 1990 and 2006.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/191226/reported-forcible-rape-rate-in-the-us-since-1990/
Quoting christian2017
It's gone down since 2000.
https://childtrends.org/indicators/child-maltreatment
Quoting christian2017
No, but as you do you might want to know that it's been in decline since 1981, and is the lowest since its legalization in 1973.
https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2019/us-abortion-rate-continues-decline-reaching-historic-low-2017
Quoting christian2017
What?
Quoting christian2017
OK?
They are not. Unless you are talking about prisons filled with "trans women".
No, the term "incel" means just what it is composed of: involuntary celibate. Not limited to any particular internet "community". If you don´t like the abbreviation, you can assume I mean the complete term when I use the short version.
And if you complain that incels get bitter and angry, then you are simply confirming my point: A lot of male incels is not good thing for a stable and peaceful society.
Yes. And a most important and defining social condition is being incel. And if you think male psychology is the same as female psychology, I can not help you.
No, I'm saying that the term "incel" is typically used to refer to the subset of involuntary celibate people who are bitter and angry and post about it on the internet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel
"Incels, a portmanteau of "involuntary celibates", are members of an online subculture who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one, a state they describe as inceldom."
Quoting Nobeernolife
OK, then I'll continue with what I was saying before; you haven't yet shown a causal connection between being involuntarily celibate and being aggressive or that that the majority of involuntary celibates are aggressive because of their involuntary celibacy.
People also become aggressive just because they can.
Especially armed men in conquered territory are notorious for that.
(or just any man during a breakdown of law and order)
It is not that they are angry or anything.
No, it just pays really well to be an arsehole in that situation.
You can get lots of gold and lots of sex just by being a bit more "unfriendly" than usual. So, why on earth would you politely ask for anything if it obviously works much better by slamming that person with your bare fists? Give me what I want, or else !!!
Oh, please do clarify ‘feminise’ for me - I’m curious what it is exactly that you think we’ve been doing to these boys that is such a travesty.
Quoting alcontali
It’s telling that you need to reach that far back into history for an argument. What saw the Vandals and Suevi through those fortifications was fear and desperation, not virility. Behind them were the Visigoths, followed by the Huns. Of course, they wouldn’t admit to this as their motivation. Ignorance, posturing and false bravado brought about the demise of the former Roman Empire. Notably, Constantinople escaped the onslaught during this time: defended first by a woman, and then later by some clever negotiations - not, as you might assume, by male virility.
Well, The first four search results for search?q=feminization+of+boys+in+school
search?q=feminization+fatherless+boys
Quoting Boys Without Fathers: 3 Myths, 3 Miracles
In the end it does not matter, because the laws of nature will still regain the upper hand anyway.
In a previous comment, I gave one small example of how nature does that: It is not even possible to keep recruiting security personnel out of that kind of male demographic.
Furthermore, it creates a large male demographic that would even benefit from a breakdown in law and order. So, I do not only expect them to refuse to keep the current societal order afloat -- by dropping out in various ways -- but even to actively disturb it with a view on eliminating it.
Next, there are the external factors too. A society full of feminized pushovers attracts outsiders who would simply enjoy to push them over. Et cetera, et cetera. The current trends are unsustainable. I think that the implosion cannot be far away. Where is the popcorn? ;-)
It’s important to note that that the intention in education has not been to ‘feminise’ boys, but to address the imbalance that has been disadvantaging girls in education for centuries. It’s true that we haven’t got the balance worked out yet, but it’s also true that while single gender education can assist academic progress, it can be harmful to a boy’s (and a girl’s) capacity to interact effectively in the real world. This is particularly relevant to sexual ethics, because much of it has to do with how we conceptualise ‘biology’ and ‘acceptable’ behaviour, both in gender-specific and ‘mixed’ company.
Did I suggest that I thought male and female psychologies were the same? Don't think so. No, I don't think men and women have the same psychological makeup. -- both as a result of social shaping and inherent sex-linked differences.
There is of course overlap. I don't think there is much difference in learning, for example. Males and females both learn content from instruction and experience, whether that's the rules of grammar, the multiplication tables, the rules of the road, and so on. Motivation, emotion, group dynamics, and so on do vary by sex.
But men are not from Mars and women are not from Venus, by which I mean they aren't THAT different.
What a Faustian pact: destroying the boys because that makes the girls look better.
Quoting Possibility
Well, I guess that is how we ended up with all these beta-orbiting, friend-zoned incels, because hey, they are so good at interacting "effectively in the real world" with the other sex. If you add up their numbers to the men in sexless marriages, or who have gone mgtow/monk, then this "interaction" does not seem to look particularly good.
We always knew that it was a bad idea to put teenage boys and girls together in one classroom. That is why we never did it in the past ... until the cultural Marxists knew better, because hey, they were going to experiment on other people's children ... and if it does not work out, then just drug the kid with Ritalin or other fake ADHD medication.
In the end, I don't care, because it is the parents themselves who happily hand over their offspring for destruction to the public-school indoctrination camps. As long as these parents do not expect to ever see any grandchildren to appear on their doorstep, they should be ok, I guess.
Quoting Possibility
The problem will obviously not get solved just by doubling down on some more cultural Marxism.
I am quite confident that it will be the impending chaos that will fix the issue, if only, because a good catharsis is now long overdue.
For most of the statistics you just put up they have risen dramatically since the 1950s. For most of those with the exception of suicide the rate has grown dramatically since the 1950s.
You haven’t even read any of the articles you referenced, have you? The term ‘feminising’ is employed as click-bait in most cases - any implication that boys learning self-awareness, patience and gentleness is somehow ‘destroying’ their masculinity is ridiculous. The techniques employed to successfully re-engage boys in learning are NEW - not revived from old-school methods - and they should be employed for the benefit of BOTH boys AND girls, because not all girls learn the same way, either.
It’s because our culture continues to celebrate and encourage the ignorance, posturing and false bravado of boys and men that the education of our boys is failing them. The cognitive dissonance between their capacity and potential as taught at school and how our culture demonstrates their role is the prime cause of problems for boys. Another major factor is the lack of diversity allowed for in education - from achievement rates to teaching and learning methods, the ‘one size and shape fits all’ mentality results in students experiencing either humility or stifled potential. It’s the humility that the male social identity appears to struggle with the most.
That is a typical culturally-Marxist view on masculinity.
The simplest solution to fix the problem is conclude that the ongoing experiment of co-education has failed, to abolish it, and to go back to boys-only and girls-only schools.
It is trivial to achieve this simply by expelling the government out of education. At that point, parents become again customers who choose whatever service they prefer. As a parent, I do not want co-education. Therefore, I choose for my children another solution.
The government has spectacularly mismanaged education, and now they must go, or else, they will be made to go.
Furthermore, I can guarantee to you that we are not going to vote over this. If they want to force other people to swallow their misguided views on education, then they will have to prove that they are willing to risk their lives and die for what they believe in.
None of this has to do with the simple observation that a surplus of young, testosterone-filled males is not good for a stable society. (It is good for a warrior society, bend on external expansion, which is one reason for the historical rapid expansion of islam.)
War and breakdowns in law and order are very similar in terms of how young, testosterone-filled males behave.
So, they may even actively want to cause a breakdown in law and order. That is something I expect them to do in the not so distant future, really. Since in my opinion the existing societal order has lost all legitimacy, I would see that kind of events rather as a solution than as a problem.
How do you even come up with this stuff.
It is the standard in Islam.
Quoting Religious advisory on co-education
Islamic law ("al fiqh") does not advocate to separate children based on religion for non-religious subjects.
Therefore, children of different religion can sit in the same classes for mathematics, language tuition, literature, science and so on, but not for religion which is to be organized in separate schools, i.e. the madrasas for children of Islamic faith. Islamic law mandates that Muslim children of different genders close to the period of adolescence must be kept separate from the other gender, regardless of the various religious background in the classes.
For Muslims, Islamic law is not subject to negotiation.
You're not a Muslim.
According to Islamic law, everybody who declares that he is a Muslim, is effectively a Muslim.
In theory, you may have to declare this before an alim, but as far as I know, that does not lead to issuing a "certificate of Islamitude".
Quoting Wikipedia on Takfir
Other Muslims are very aware of the takfir/mukaffir doctrine and would never say "You are not a Muslim". I never say a thing like that either.
What is Wiki-Muslim?
Shame about all those kids sexy dancing to this in schools in Iran. Remember to swipe right on Tindr if you think she looks good in hijab.
You're also shitting on Turkey's national political hero, Atatürk, the reformer, who apparently is not a Muslim by your standards.
Did I say anything about Atatürk personally?
Yasar Yakis (a founding member of the AK Party) says that the opinion of Muslims in Turkey is rather the following:
Quoting Yasar Yakis on Ataturk
Not only was his performance as a military commander in the Dardanelles quite impressive, but he also managed to put a stop to the Allied occupation of Turkey after WWI. That is why Atatürk is a national hero in Turkey.
Furthermore, the aggressive secularism had already started during the Ottoman empire even to the point that the sharif of the Hejaz designated the Ottoman Young-Turk government as apostates and then spearheaded a successful insurgency in Arabia and the wider Middle East. I am not sure that the Sharif's choice of timing was particularly good, though. It certainly managed to undo Atatürk's achievements in the Dardanelles. The sharif may have successfully solved a problem by creating a much, much bigger one.
True, in practice a woman who is a professional athlete may actually have higher testosterone than an "average" man does.
Likewise, as per medical sources, it also plays a role in many health benefits, not solely "aggression" such as improved mathematical and spatial reasoning skills, as per this peer reviewed article by Graham Rogers, MD:
https://www.healthline.com/health/benefits-testosterone#benefits
(Sadly most popular information on this subject is anti-intellectual and sensationalist, dumbed down to the average 6th grade reading level or, whatever lowest common denominator most mass media is marketed to).
There's no such thing as "involuntary" celebate. (It would likely be harder to be voluntary celebate, than involuntarily celebrate, if the Catholic priest molestation scandals are any indicators)..
Your physical body doesn't even know the difference between a "hand" and a vagina, hence why it comes; the body is a thing of very simple pleasures (just like it doesn't know the difference between a naked woman in .jpg format and a naked woman in the flesh).
By "incel", what they actually mean is John Hinckley Jr. Syndrome, as in a guy who thinks that Taylor Swift or Mariah Carey is entitled to date or marry them while living in their mom's basement just because they're "nice", or something (that is when they aren't fantasizing about their mass shootings).
Plus by the same token, today's society is rampant in free internet porn, so an "incel" who is completely unambitious and unable to find anything more productive or worth living for can spend his life on free porn addiction till his heart's content, and I doubt that the majority of them will be so maladjusted by it that they will become a "threat", the proverbial freaks in question (e.x. Elliot Roger or whoever) likely suffered from severe mental disturbances that went beyond simply not being able to 'get laid'.
Statistics don't "lie", they simply get misinterpreted, used, abused, either by virtue of ignorance or intentional dishonesty.
Such as using "black crime" statistics as an arbitrary form of racial discrimination, even against black lawyers, doctors, scientists, etc who have never committed a crime, while ignoring that white criminals do exist.
Very true.
But once a racist does not have to stay a racist. I used to be extremely prejudiced in my teens, twenties and thirties, then I grew out of it as I matured. To wit, even in my thirties and twenties I thought I was not racist, but I was. Deeply. Why? I don't know. The typical, I guess, because I am very gullible. Extremely analytical, but very gullible. Now it hurts me, not just as a pretence reaction, when someone says something racist.
Sexist? I think I am still a bit sexist. I normally am not, but if you show me to a rabid feminist, then she will brand me as such. And then I see red. The most anti-feminist trait in me right now is a defensive reaction: when I see things like "abused women's circle meets here at 7 pm" or "poets against sexual harrassment" or "stop child abuse in the world" then I take it on me, and want to punch whoever is advocating the movement, because I feel it is directed straight at me: a fat, short, past middle aged male man.
Lately I'm interested in the business side of "movements" or "philantrophic" causes, such as the measurable differences in actual goals, effectivity, strategy, and so and so on beyond merely the simple, exaggerated "mission statement" which is really just a marketing or advertising thing, and has little to no realistic bearing on what's actually being done or accomplished, mathematically, so to speak, as well as on the legal details involved in organizing or participating in such a 'movement'..
Something that differentiates pure mindless "slactivism", which is either incompetent, inept, or downright lying, insincerity, and scammyness from more serious activism by thinking men and women, which is actually a worthwhile cause in theory and in practice, rather than a mere "baby step" or outright comedic relief than preys on naivete and pure appeals to emotion, rather than reason, facts, logic and so on and so forth.
No. You do not need "the entire population to stop having children" for a demographic trend leading to extinction. It is simple math. An average birth rate of 1.3 leads to an increasingly aged population and ultimately to extinction. It is not like I am making up a new topic here. This is very much debated topic for example in Western Europe
Yes, but for how long would that trend occur, and what makes you think that it won't fluctuate?
And as far as nations with the highest birth rates, many of them are sub-Saharan African nations or 3rd world countries (e.x. Niger with an average birth rate of 6-7 per woman); most people in the "West", even those who bring up "low birth" rates wouldn't want to devolve to a 3rd world country in which practices such as polygamy or arranged child marriages are potentially a factor. Monogamy, as an institution is predicated on prioritizing "higher mental wants", or quality and stability of marriages and relationships in civilized nations, despite being negatively correlated with "higher birth rates", yet people take this for granted.
Well, compared to Chinese or Indians, all "white" or people of European descent are a "minority" as it is.
So what should be done about that? Should North Americans and Europeans artificially increase their populations by 3-6X just to avoid being a racial "minority" in compared to 3rd world India and China?
Plus, being a 'minority' isn't necessarily a "bad" thing (e.x. billionaires are "minorities", pro-athletes are "minorities", people with extremely high IQs are "minority"), nor is it in mutual exclusivity with being part of a "majority" (e.x. A "Caucasian" American with a very high IQ is part of a "majority" in the sense of being Caucasian, and also part of being in a "minority" due to having an above-average IQ).
That's assuming the population trend continues unabated; in practice, when has any population ever reached "zero" simply due to not having children?
In practice, national averages would still have little bearing on individual families, or other types of communities that exist within the context of said national boundaries.
(e.x. A society as a whole, wouldn't want everyone "equally" having children to begin with, it would rather a fairly mature and stable family have more children, rather than unemployed or homeless people fathering children who they are unable or unwilling to support financially and adding to a "poverty" trap, of sorts).
Please give me more specifics, and define what makes him a "surplus"; if you're talking about "incels" or something, I don't buy into the concept to begin with for reasons I've already mentioned.
Everything fluctuates, my point is simply that demographics is important.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
Nobody said we should. The point is simply that the predicted quadrupling of the population of Africa from the current 1 to 4 billion in 50 years matters. It e.g. makes the entire climate debate moot.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
Nobody said "higher mental wants". I said it is a basis for a stable society. And it is not negatively correlated with higher birth rates. Women can have a limited number of children in their lifetime, regardless if in mono or polygamy. The difference for society are the incels.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
World-wide, yes. But we don´t live in one world, we live in countries. And the demographics of a country are important.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
That is not the point. I simply pointed out that if you replace a shrinking population in one area by importing a growing population from another place, the imported population will take over.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
Tell that to the persecuted Serbs living in enclaves in Kosovo, Or the Tibetans and Uigurs being replaced by Han Chinese in China. Demographics do not matter???
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
Not having children is not necessary. Having children beneath replacement level is enough.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
It is a sociological fact throughout the world and throughout history. If I have to explain to you that male and female psychology are different, I cant help you.
Am I supposed to be offended by this extreme-right, neo-Nazi conspiracy-theorist label? I’ve seen enough examples of healthy masculinity to stand by my statement. Men are all decent human beings when they’re not resorting to ignorance, posturing and false bravado to conceal their fears of inadequacy. It’s pretty simple, really.
Quoting alcontali
Hmm, sounds you’re plotting something....
My experience with both single-sex and co-ed schooling prompts me to seek the co-ed option for my children, without a doubt. Fear of our own ‘sexual urge’ is like the tail wagging the dog. Yes, puberty complicates the education environment and increases risk, but it also provides countless opportunities to learn and test practical strategies for interaction with diversity that simply cannot be taught in a single-sex environment. What we can teach both girls and boys about integrity, patience and self-awareness, and about their capacity for kindness, gentleness and generosity in sharing a classroom with the opposite sex can be extrapolated to influence their sexual encounters. We shouldn’t be afraid of that, but rather rise to the challenge. Forcing young people to learn this outside of school is a far greater risk.
I am also for co-ed schooling, but if you combine that with politically correct manipulation in order to achieve gender equality in outcomes (rather than opportunity), you get a disaster, and that is what is currently happening in many Western countries.
I’m not arguing for gender equality, but rather diversity. Any focus on achieving equality in educational outcomes is going to be a disaster.
But the topic here is not educational outcomes - it’s sexual ethics, which is the main reason I support co-ed schooling.
Agree. But that is what the education system heading towards in many Western countries by feminizing education.
What we need to do is challenge our cultural concept of ‘masculine’ to be more open to diverse awareness and educational opportunities, not limit educational opportunities to fit within the cultural concept of ‘masculine’.
"Clickbait"? On an obscure philosophy forum? And you are making up a strawman. By orientating the education system to girls, boys are being disadvantaged. If you want think deeper about the topic, check out lectures by e.g. Jonathan Haidt and Jordan Peterson, both who have done research about this.
I understand the defensive position. The pendulum swing is a brutal action, and I’m well aware of women who hate. But it seems to me like you’re jumping to conclusions to react so violently to the existence of an “abused women’s circle”, for instance. Women who support each other through an experience of abuse, and even those who strive to minimise occasions of sexual harassment are not necessarily plotting your demise, and don’t specifically mean to exclude you. But if you jump to defend those actions or undermine their ability to be heard and understood, they will visibly turn on you, and with good reason.
I’m going to use stereotypes here, not because I think all men or women are like this, but because it’s a general misunderstanding between us. Women often want their internal affect to be heard and understood. Men seem to automatically translate verbal expression of this internal affect into a potential action - illustrated here by your wanting to punch someone, rather than acknowledging the feeling behind the potential punch. That you recognise your position as defensive is an excellent start. But logic should tell you that you needn’t mount a physical defence in response to emotional words. It won’t physically harm you to hear what they have to say, even though your body will feel as if a threat is immanent. They’re not attacking you - they’re expressing how they feel. There’s a world of difference.
If you can distinguish between the expression of internal affect and the potential action, then there’s hope for you.
I like the term "culturally Marxist" because that is exactly what it is. I don't care who else adopted the term. If the Neo-Nazis adopted the term "yellow beef broth" would I stop using it? ... not really.
Quoting Possibility
If you think that co-education is good for your children, then go for it. What else can I say?
The ‘click-bait’ was in reference to the articles from alcontali. But the system is not being orientated towards girls, but towards broader educational opportunities. From a girls’ point of view, there are so many doors open to them which were previously closed simply because they were female. From a boys’ point of view, they don’t want to explore these doors now open to them, because the new opportunities are seen as ‘feminising’. That’s their choice, but don’t complain because girls are willing to work harder in a subject that many boys manage to coast through without effort. It’s also becoming clear that the capacity for emotional intelligence and self-awareness are vital skills in a world where a moment of misplaced aggression could destroy the planet.
The arguments against ‘feminising’ illustrate the narrow point of view that is promoted as ‘masculinity’ - a point of view which celebrates ignorance, posturing and false bravado as worth fighting for. I disagree. But I’m not against masculinity at all. There is nothing wrong with making productive use of one’s physical strength, technical expertise or mathematical and spatial ability, if you have it. But not all boys have these strengths, and yet they all have as many educational and social opportunities available to them as everyone else. They’re just not using them. They’re too busy pretending they don’t want to learn or keeping their heads down, rather than developing their strengths in non-traditional areas.
Our current social concept of ‘masculinity’ doesn’t recognise abilities in self-awareness, social consciousness or critical and creative thinking. But these aren’t ‘feminine’ abilities - they’re human ones. Boys are effectively using these abilities just to keep up the ‘masculine’ facade and avoid learning, when they could be developing them into strengths.
Those boys who excel in traditional ‘masculine’ traits are not struggling at school. It’s those boys who would rather just scrape by at this false concept of ‘masculinity’ than strive to be anything else, and who compensate with posturing and false bravado - they’re the ones who are disadvantaged.
Jonatha Haidt is convincing on the topic. You are not.
Well, I guess that is how we ended up with all these beta-orbiting, friend-zoned incels, because hey, they are so good at interacting "effectively in the real world" with the other sex. If you add up their numbers to the men in sexless marriages, or who have gone mgtow/monk, then this "interaction" does not seem to look particularly good.
[/quote]
From what I've gleaned, a "monk" in the true sense isn't comparable to a "mgtow/incel":
For example:
In this video, the monk sets himself on fire while meditating. My understanding is that the mindset and worldview behind an actual monk is one of extreme self-discipline, or one of renunciation of worldly desires in the pursuit of some higher calling or purpose. (It's pretty apparent that no "MGTOW/Incel" would be self-controlled enough to do something like this; likely his pale skin would burn off the second he steps out of the basement and experience sunlight for likely the first time in his life. From what I'm aware of, every major world religion has or has had some variant of a monastic or "mystical" school or tradition.
In contrast, the worldview of the "MGTOW/Incel" is the polar opposite, one of pop nihilism, hedonism, materialistic consumerism, and so on - hence why they spend all of their time masturbating to anime, porn, MMORPGs (sarcasm intended), and other addictions, and obsessing in a John Hinckley Jr. like fashion over "women" as a whole despite claiming to not want them in their lives; almost akin or equivalent to "radical feminism" or "lesbian separatism" a la Andrea Dworkin or Valerie Solanas, in which all heterosexual relationships, even legal and consensual ones are "rape" or somehow inherently "exploitive", just with the sexes in .
So no, to me comparing an actual monk and the worldview or philosophy inherent in it to a "MGTW/Incel" cultist would be like comparing devout veganism, to a person who eats leftover big macs out of a McDonald's dumpster because he's too cheap to pay for actual meat.
I resolutely refuse to criticize MGTOW men. They do not want to have relationships because of the gynocentric court system and because they believe that society has thoroughly perverted the opposite sex.
First of all, in Islamic terms, if marriage and divorce are not governed by Islamic law, then the man is advised not to enter the arrangement. Secondly, chastity is indeed a very non-optional requirement:
The Quran simply does not want a man to enter a marriage arrangement when there are serious questions or doubts about chastity. Therefore, the religious advisory en provenance from the Quran is that the MGTOW guys are absolutely right on both counts.
Personally, I fundamentally solved the problem by emigrating to a different jurisdiction, in a galaxy far, far away (SE Asia) and by being absolutely paranoia, from a non-negotiable position, concerning the chastity of my spouse. If I had not emigrated, I would also have been staunchly MGTOW today.
The view is that we live in a statistical universe and everything happens for a reason.
I don't care about people's sex life, sex is a way reproduction can happen; and reproduction is best suited for working habitats.
If we're destroying the planet, then people can't expect pro-reproduction ethics(hence, statistical universe).
A broken world causes a lot of abnormalities, so, inter alia, gay people, deserve forgiveness. To hate without any remorse a gay person, is a lot stupid.
There needs to be a whole lot of administration to fix our mess.
I resolutely refuse to criticize MGTOW men. They do not want to have relationships because of the gynocentric court system and because they believe that society has thoroughly perverted the opposite sex.
I don't think their mindset is that deep about it, no.
As far as "gynocentric", the court system and legal philosophy is primarily pragmatic, not about satiating childish and dumbed-down notions of "equality" in a way which runs contrary to legal pragmatism.
Given that our legal systems have been around since the 1700-1800s and before, it's possible some aspects of them haven't been updated to suit the times or cultural shifts, however on this, I think rather than mindlessly "railing" against the system as a whole, using sensationalized words like "gynocentric", one should give specific examples of laws which should be changed on a state or federal level, and something akin to an actionable plan for or on how to do it.
---
Are you a Muslim? Are you going to move to a strict Sharia law nation?
I've never read the Koran or anything equivalent to a history of Islam, and I don't see why the Koran is relevant to this discussion here. And what other things does your Koran say, other than that one small part in isolation?
I don't think Islam would be too keen on "MGTOW" men deciding to devote their life to porn and anime masturbation either, but for that matter, so would any fairly well-adjusted normal person either, so "Islam" isn't particularily relevant here.
Anthropologically speaking, in ancient times, concepts such as "birthright" were very culturally fundamental for pragmatic reason which I'd prefer not to get into as of right now.
I believe this is where this fits in to the anthropological scheme of things.
Regardless, young men and women 'hooking up' or 'messing around' during adolescence Is something of a reality, ideally that it's something to mature out of, rather than "sex with as many people as possible" being one's only aim in life.
Much as the overly "romanticized" notions of the past, or that young people "didn't hook" up until some "recent" time period (e.x. whether after the "1950s", after the "Victorian era" of the 1800s, or whatever time period is overly romanticized) is somewhat fictitious as well.
"Romeo and Juliet" by Shakespeare, for example, was basically the equivalent of a "teen romance", like twilight, much as how men and women sleeping with other people's wives or husbands (such as King David in the Bible) is a recorded reality since times ancient.
I suppose that if two people enter a relationship, there is always a "possibility" like that in mind, but regardless, I do not think that an attitude of cynicism, nihilism, or paranoia is healthy, and If anything just fodder "trash TV" shows like Jerry Springer or Steve Wilkos.
Rollo Tomassi is quite deep. His website, the rational male, certainly is. There are actually quite a few of these websites. They also have elaborate youtube and bitchute channels. If you want to figure out what they think, you will quickly see that they specifically take issue with exactly the two problems that I mentioned.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
That is pretty much also the position of the MRA (Men's Rights Activists).
The MGTOW crowd rejects that point of view. They do not want to change the system.
MGTOW prefer to completely withdraw, and just let the system collapse, because they consider the system beyond salvation already. I think that they are also right on that matter. There is no point in fixing anything. Just let the laws of nature take over instead. Furthermore, it is enough that men withdraw in droves from the labour force and from relationships to effectively precipitate the inevitable collapse. I did the same. I cannot be bothered about failing systems because I live elsewhere now.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
Islamic law is first and foremost a matter of self-discipline. There is some need for a government to do conflict resolution and victim compensation but that is for me personally not a pressing matter on a daily basis. Hence, an Islamic government is merely nice to have. A hands-off government is actually equally good.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
We don't know if a particular person is devoted to porn and anime masturbation. If it is an offence against Islamic law, which is possibly the case, it would still require the quorum of witnesses before it would be actionable.
Furthermore, what conflict would there need to be resolved or what victims would there need to be compensated in the realm of porn and anime masturbation? Hence, all you could ever see about that is a religious advisory decidedly recommending against porn and anime masturbation, prominently affixed to a virtual wall on the internet. Case closed.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
Demanding chastity before agreeing to marriage is not "an attitude of cynicism, nihilism, or paranoia". For Muslims, it is a non-optional requirement. Since MGTOW come to exactly the same conclusion as Islam, I cannot possibly criticize MGTOW, and certainly not on their advisories. In fact, the ulema (the Islamic religious scholars) have been issuing exactly the same advisories for decades now.
When I look at MGTOW, each one of their concerns and each one of their solutions comply with Islamic law. Hence, no bad word from me on MGTOW.
For male biology, procreation is a privilege acquired through either violent combat ("mating season") or possibly through civilizing hacks such as marriage, if and when such civilizing hack still possibly functions.
You've made so may posts here, I'm going to make a separate thread to respond to them in, ok?
These two are not the same. To remind you, the "In" in Incel refers to INvoluntary.
You have Incels where there is a surplus of young males, looking for women. By definition, you have them in societies which practise polygamy. Which is one of the reasons that no society with polygamy has ever reached a high cultural level. Essentially, these are warrior societies by definition.
My understanding is that in every society, "warriors" were small percentage of the population; much as how today, the average person, nor even the average person who works for the US military is a special forces veteran or fighter pilot who has seen live combat.
If anything, an "incel" likely would have been one of the "low status men" who the king or emperor had turned into a eunuch and forced to serve in his haram, rather than simply "allowed to exist" as it is.
And no, the problem doesn't seem to be that they're "looking for women", it's not a case of a fat, Minecraft addicted male who sexually identifies as a "Brony" looking for a fat, Mincrafted addicted female who sexually identifies as a "pegasister" to go on a Minecraft date together.
It's more like a case of fat, Mincraft-addicted male trying to 'swoon' Taylor Swift or Beyoncé, claiming she won't talk to him because he's "too nice", and typing out his rough draft of a school shooting plan on his sticky keyboard.
(Or conversely, a fat, Minecraft addicted female trying to get her "senpai" Justin Bieber or "Brad Pitt" to notice her).
It really isn't. "Left liberal", "social democrat", "progressive liberal" are much better.
Your run of the mill proponent of gender equality, racial equality, disability rights, secularism, progressive taxation, fiscal transparency and welfare advocacy doesn't take their ideological cues from Marxism or socialism, which are anticapitalist politics relying on a structural analysis of class and place class in a central role in their political opinions, they're normal pro-capitalist pro-democracy pro-human rights people in a vague and usually unarticulated sense. Less Rosa Luxemburg, more Walter Bregman.
Even if this vague sense filled the leftist politics vacuum after socialism and worker's politics died down in the west.
The kind of vocabulary that paints Bernie Sanders as akin to the freakin' Naxalites is intentionally misleading.
The reality is that "uncivilized" behavior is a human behavior, not exclusive to 'males', even if there are differences in male and female aggression and behavior, both men and women, for example can and have been held legally or criminally liable for violent acts such as murder; there are men who have never commit a murder, and women who have, regardless of the role that testosterone may or may not have played in it, with an archaic argument based on reductionism or determinism, akin to use of "scientific racist" arguments which nevertheless negate or deny the reality that there are African people who have not committed aggressive or violent crimes, and "white" people who have.
Thankfully such archaic reductionism and deterministic nonsense, which was more or less considered to be nonsense even during the outdated era in which it was most popular, as far as more serious legal and moral philosophy, which predicates or takes into account notions such as reasoning, intentions, which a differentiation between acting in the "heat of the moment" (e.x. 2nd degree murder) and acting rationally, calculatedly or premeditatedly (e.x. first degree murder). Most of the legal and moral philosophy, is thankfully predicated on notions such as a reason, intentions, and rationality, rather than archaic biological reduction, based solely averages and mythical abstractions approximations which don't actually apply or mean anything in reality, beyond simple estimations in individual circumstances, not to be taken literally when they're clearly nonsense and don't apply - to the point of silliness and nonsensicality even when it clearly isn't applicable to individual men and women, solely to "win an argument" rather than illuminate anything of value.
Conversely a woman who is a seasoned pro athlete or the minority of women who have served in armed combat (e.x. some Russian female snipers In WII) may in practice, have higher testosterone than an "average" male pencil pusher.
You can read "Meditations on Violence" by Rory Miller if you're interested in it.
As peer some peer reviewed articles on testosterone, it contributes positively to mathematical and spatial reasoning ability, and not solely "aggression" (hence why Asperger's syndrome or high-functioning autistic spectrum disorders, are sometimes considered an "extreme" example of the male brain, despite most people with Aspergers being viewed as stereotypically "geeky" rather than "aggressive" and "uncivilized".
As far as science writings on evolutionary psychology goes such as by science writers like Robert Wright; behaviors considered "uncivilized" (e.x. polygamy or polyamorous desires resulting infidelity), are not exclusive to "men" or "women", such as myths about "men's sex drives";
The primary difference is supposedly that men are more likely to cheat for "new partners", while women are more likely to cheat if they can get "different things" from each partner, such as financial stability from one partner, or romance / excitement from another partner.
---
As far as civilization goes, isn't solely "invented", and not as part of a conspiracy theory to "repress males".
It relates to institutions which come from mental abilities such as reasoning which have nothing specifically to do with "men" or "women". (Psychopathology, such as obsessive-compulsive disorders resulting from maladaptedness to elements of civilization have been documented by Freud and others, but an extremist, anarchist view in which all civilization is inherently "evil" is rather absurd to me at this point in my life, especially if all of these discussions are being done on a computer).
Not to mention that even animals, such as ants, show elements of civilization, which indicate that it's to some degree or another, an innate part of who we are.
Quoting Wikipedia on cultural Marxism
I use the term "cultural Marxism" as a blanket reference to the vague collection of ideologies that emerges from atheism and that rejects the requirements of traditional religious law. I don't know of a better term to capture the idea.
I do not count multiculturalism under that nomer, because I do not see that as a problem.
For example, the Ottoman empire was staunchly multicultural and multi-religious. The Ottoman millet system worked fine for close to a millenium. There is absolutely no need for everyone to share the same culture or the same religion.
When people reject religious law, they will still organize society according to a particular model. Whether they see themselves as leaning "left" or "right", the result will fundamentally be the same.
It will consist of a Statist land grab in which governments repossess solidarity from extended family, clan, tribe, and religious community through state-run social security, while also bringing education and healthcare under secular, atheist state control. By peeling off layer after layer of the onion of traditional social structure, the Statist land grab will eventually also reach the nuclear family, and rip it apart, making generational reproduction impossible in the process. The individualized and atomized person in such society will ultimately even fail to survive. At that point, cultural Marxism will have destroyed itself.
Both political "left" and "right" are rife with Statism and hellbent on new Statist land grabs. That is the "Marxist" part about it. In the end, it is not about the economy, because their attack on human society is directly aimed at the social structure, i.e. its wider notion of "culture".
Secularist. You rail against secularism.
That is a confused premise, on several accounts. First, atheism is simply a personal position on one issue, and not a belief system, so there is nothing to rely on. Secondly, there are plenty of religions that do not come with a "religious law" (in fact, I would argue islam is an outlier there in terms of its radical reliance on religious law, making it more political system than a religion). Thirdly, "cultural marxism" is generally defined as the general set of ideas emerging from Marxist "Frankfurt School" of sociology, that wants to use culture rather than traditional class warfare to destroy the West.
So where does a definition based on wrong premises lead you?
With anecdotal evidence, you can "prove" whatever you want. I am talking about society in general. And there are real, very demonstrable and very obvious differences between genders and age groups. In human society. Which really should be obvious to anyone not blinded by ideology.
And against statism too.
Now, I do not believe at all that atheists should become religious or adopt the self-discipline of religious law. They can obviously do what they want.
It is just that the western-style state is way too intrusive in people's lives. They even try to substitute community charity (zakaat and sadaqah) by financially bankrupt social-security statism.
It is about what the secularists-atheists try to replace religious systems by. It is exactly because their views are not a legitimate system and just some kind of vague personal position that I am so opposed to their social "solutions".
Quoting Nobeernolife
Well, that is not completely true either.
When push comes to shove, you will see that e.g. a Christian community suddenly also has a religious law. They certainly had one in the Ottoman empire, and they still have one in Lebanon today, where the fifteen religious communities happily administer their own marriage and divorce regulations.
Quoting Fifteen communities administering their religious law in Lebanon
The same can be said of Hinduism. They did not have a religious law until they argued that they actually had one:
Quoting Wikipedia on Dharma?h?stra
So, the antinomian idea that a religion has no religious law gets abandoned rather swiftly when they are asked to self-govern the personal and family law of their religious community. Then you will find that they suddenly re-discover their own religious law.
In fact, I find all fifteen codexes in Lebanon quite reasonable, much more so than the completely failed approach in secular western countries with imploding marriage -and fertility rates. The proof is always in the pudding.
You really should stop generalizing. Secularists-atheists by definition do not necessarily try to replace anyhing. I am am atheist, and I have nothing against religion, as long as it remains cultural/spiritual. I am very much against political movements using "religion" as a cover. I.e. I have no problem with Buddhism, Zoroastrism, or Bahaism (just to pick a few), but I am very much opposed to islam.
And stop generalizing about "religion". There are very different ones out there, from some that have no political ambitions (i.e. Buddhism) to others that de facto are radical political movements (islam). Generalizing about "religion" is like generalizing about "books", i.e. meaningless.
Do you seriously want to go through all 3000 existing and countless extinct religions to "prove" to us they all have a religious law? I did not say that NONE has. I simply said NOT ALL have. And notice that I never mentioned Christianity.
So put your strawman back in the closet, thanks.
Here is Bertrand Russel:
"Bolshevism combines the characteristics of the French Revolution with those of the rise of islam. Marx has taught that Communism is fatally predestined to come about; this produces a state of mind not unlike that of the early successors of Mahommet. Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world."
BERTRAND RUSSEL
Quoting Unequal and Unprotected. Women’s Rights under Lebanese Personal Status Laws
They do.
Atheists are hellbent on imposing their views onto others under the nomer of "human rights".
So, these "activists" want "to guarantee that citizens are treated equally".
Their idea is to replace religious law by their own secular inventions. Of course, that will just lead to a western-style divorce-rape system where men will no longer want to marry, and to a collapse in the fertility rate. It means the end of the nuclear family. The religious communities do not want their law to be replaced by something that is known not to work.
Marriage is meaningless anyway for atheists. So, why do they even bother?
The guarantors of the current system of religious marriage and divorce are the guns, cannons, and mortars of Hezbollah. If these "activists" try to push ahead with their plans, it will lead to violent combat. So, in a sense, I think that it is still a good idea that they try, because it will thoroughly weed out and decimate their demographic. There are just too many arrogant atheists in Lebanon, and violent conflict will duly solve that problem.
The situation isn't that simple; for one, no one has provided anything according to a working definition of "secularism" to begin with in theory, whatever that is or means, nor "religion", given that the Supreme Court has recognized non-traditional or non-thestic religions such as "Secular Humanism (which traces its leniage back to Auguste Comte and his cult or "religion of Humanity").
For that matter, many if not most definitions of "religion" are based on abstractions or nonsense, which no serious historical attempt at defining "religion" to begin with would take seriously, usually boiling down to childish conflations of "religion" with "mythology" or "children's stores", or rather some simplistic iconographic image allegedly depicting a "god", perhaps akin to one of Carl Jung's archetypes, even when religions(s) as far history as concerned, even dating back to the days of the Medieval Church, never claimed that silly graven images or 'idols" depicting god or a deity, most of which come more from popular culture or folklore than from any actual religious or theological text to begin with, were never said to be the "god", "goddess", or whatever, but rather just a simplistic image used in depiction of an abstract concept, akin to how a cartoonish drawing of "atom" is not a real atom, but merely used to depict one, or something which can't be seen with the naked eye.
One would think that this would be somewhat obvious and commonsensical, at least to moderate literate people, but sadly it isn't and is lost on so many of them, not reading or being able to read or write beyond a paltry 6th grade reading level to begin with.
Beyond that, and whatever arbitrary and childishly inaccurate definitions of "religion" or "secularism" are often and erroneously offered, seemingly simply meaning whatever one "wants" them to mean, or were incorrectly taught or told they mean, whether intentionally lied to, or simply misinformed.
Much as how the false dichotomy between "religious / secular" only exists in pure abstraction; the law (as in the Common) of the states as well as the UK, developed or evolved from older legal systems, including Exodus, Rome, and so on and so forth.
Obviously laws and morality, such as prohibition of murder, not only existed within the context of "religious" systems of law or government, but within "secular" ones, such as the Common Law system as well.
True, in terms of how people actually act or behave, in theory or practice, as is well documented by many experts, including ones which focus on the biological or evolutionary psychological aspects, such types of behaviors are by no means exclusive to "religion", or whatever incorrect or bad definition of "religion" one is using at any given time to begin with. To some extent, this should be common sense, as per Pinker and others, sadly on some serially stupid and/or dishonest individuals who lack even the basic social intelligence, self-awareness or intuition that would be expected of a more savvy child, this is sadly lost on them, in favor of ideological salesmanship and outright lies and misinformations...
They do.
Atheists are hellbent on imposing their views onto others under the nomer of "human rights".
[/quote]
I don't see any correlation between "human rights" and "atheism".
Much as the dichotomy between "religious / secular" is false, and doesn't exist that way except in pure childish abstractions; for example, in our modern Common Law systems, crimes such as murder were also sins and crimes within older, "religious" systems of law, such as Exodus, which modern law evolved out of.
Says the guy talking about MRAs and whatnot, when historically, as far as ancient cultures go, MRAs and MGTOW wouldn't have any "rights" to begin with or petition for; do you think an ancient monarch would tolerate him, let alone incels thinking that his Queen is entitled to date them simply because they're "nice".
They've have been turned into eunuchs and forced to serve in his haram, rather than simply allowed to "exist" or subsist as they are today.
I don't think you understand what your talking about; most of the "divorce" court system has nothing to with recent political or identarian movements (e.x. "2nd or 3rd wave pop feminism", or whatnot").
It's, ironically more of a holdover from the 19th century, possibly even including "religious" moral sentiments; based presumptions such as women being inherently better nurtures of children, or men presumed being the sole or main providers of income (which of course, wasn't the case on the whole even in dated areas such as that, as Marie Curie, Queen Victoria, or other prominent women of any and every historical area prove, though generally it's presumed that more of a tendency toward "arbitrary" discrimination, primarily against women on the basis of "sex" alone existed).
So, the system is flawed in this reason, not because of "feminism" or whatever you're attributing it to, but rather because potentially outdated laws haven't been updated to reflect changing socioeconomic conditions, so the best bet as far as that goes, wouldn't be to mindless or ignorantly rail against "feminism", especially when what you're calling "feminism" is closer to archaic "traditionalism" than anything else, but rather work to change the laws yourself.
How much "fertility rate" does one need; monogamy itself "lowers fertility" rates in comparison to archaic practices such as polygamy; which even "religious" systems for most of recent history have accepted, as a cultural evolution above more primitive practices, and civilizing force which guarantees better rights for families, children, and so on and so forth.
What do you mean by "work", and by what means to what ends?
Polygamy which is known to "work" has been replaced by monogamy both in "religious" and "secular" communities and systems for similar reasons.
Not everything, within any system is solely reducible to whether it "works" either by some means or ends which themselves are inherently problematic, but about higher quality, even at the natural expense of pure "stability" to the point of archaism, anti-intellectualism, cultural regression, and so on and so forth.
For that matter, the same could be said of archaic systems, whether "religious, secular" or otherwise, given that many if not most "systems" currently at work or at use date to centuries back to begin with, archaic as they might be, or as many of them ironically were even during the time period in which they originated, were trendy, were popular, and so on, in comparison to superior or more overarching systems or theories, the Common Law system and theories, such as their basis of morality, intentions, premeditations, and so on and so forth being product of human reason, as well as human "passions" or instincts, such as are documented by evolutionary psychologists playing a role in addictions, crimes of "passions" as opposed to more serious, calculated, premeditated and intentional ones, and so forth. (Making one wonder where archaic notions such as reductionistic "behaviorism" and similar and related anti-intellectual "legalistic" nonsense (not to be confused or conflated with the law itself, in moral or legal theory and in moral or legal practice, such as by Judge Holmes in his treatise on the Common Law system and philosophy by which it governs and is sustained and perpetuated), ever orginated or why they did to begin with, given that they were more or less known to be nonsense in as far as systems of the law and its legal and moral phllosophy are or were concerned, even in or during the day where archaic fads and trends like that were supposedly popular among less intellectual members of their various and interconnect societies and populations to begin with.
MRAs are not the same as MGTOW.
Furthermore, rights are not something the monarch gives you but something that you extract at gunpoint. Hence, it is mostly a question of who defeats whom in battle.
MRAs are not the same as MGTOW.
I don't really care, to be honest.
Fact is those groups want "legal" rights.
And when, in your actual life (not in Cod), have you actually done that, or will you actually do that, tough guy?
Please, tell me how you're going to extract your "rights" to rape a woman at knife point, or single-handedly made like Tony Montana and shot up the entire gang of Sicilian Mafiosi who were trying to "extract" your rights at gunpoint - don't worry, the FBI isn't reading this, you can share with us.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'orienting' it to girls, some have made the opposite claim, that it's oriented to boys due to an emphasis on "math", so I take these claims with a grain of salt.
Much as I take claims about any legal educational system which is only oriented to a K-12, or entry level college or university level, given how low and ultimately relevant such an actual level of "education is", beyond those men and women who actively peruse high levels of learning and education on their own.
If mass media, which is primarily marketed to a 6th grade reading level, or average 100 IQ is any concern, then most of it, whether false dicthomies (e.x. public/private/home/etc), comparions or abstractions which only matter at that low, anti-intellectual level to begin with, call me arrogant in my own higher mathematical intelligence and literacy, but such things literally strike me as childs play, and aren't remotely worth the cost/benefit analysis from a pure learning, mathematically analytical perspective, like that of Rhodes Scholar Edward De Bono, assuming that inherently and demonstrably, mathematically, provable and inherently superior methods and more contemporary, and less archaic 19th century holdovers masquerading as methodologies to the 100 IQ, 6th grade reading level demographic it's marketed to and catered to, altogether are available to more ambitious, thinking men and think women in the 21st century, or Information Age, or even eras before, who didn't limit themselves to whatever archaic and anti-intellectual bare mimum were readily offered them via salesmanship as mere paltry table scraps.
Some people are simply too selfish, inept, lazy, or otherwise useless enough to even bother visiting their local library, their local law library, their Amazon or Kindle account, and thinking that reading one book a year marketed to the 6th grade reading level is a major accomplishment, as opposed to intellectually, intuitively, and creatively superior men and women, who read as much as one full, graduate or post-gradute school book a day all on their own volition, such as in the case male and female CEOs or executives on Ted Talks, and the like.
Not true. MRA do, but MGTOW don't.
MGTOW are simply bailing out. They do not ask for anything to change. It just reflects the growing trend of men bailing out from the workforce and out of "relationshits". They just don't want to be someone else's plough horse on the "plantation".
It is not possible to change anything to society for MGTOW to change their mind. They have decided to move on, and they are simply not coming back.
Given the fact that I also believe that western society is beyond salvation, I agree with MGTOW and not with MRA, whose ambitions I consider to be pointless. I love it here in SE Asia. I am also not coming back. Ever.
Whereabouts? Went to Thailand recently. Loved it and want to move back there.
1. Cambodia
2. Vietnam
3. Philippines
All three countries are fantastic in their own special way. I rarely hang out in Thailand, though. The last time was in 2018 for two weeks in Chiang Mai. Thailand is probably an ok country but it does not "madly" attract me. Maybe it lacks that little small bit of authenticity to make it addictive! ;-)
Spent 2 months in Siem Reap a few years ago. Probably my favourite place.
Agreed. It is great!
Phnom Penh and Kampot are also superb. Fifteen minutes across the Vietnamese border from Kampot, you are in Ha Tien, Vietnam, which is a nifty provincial town with fantastic seafood restaurants, not to mention, dirt cheap. There's a ferry from there to Phu Quoc island, which lots of people say good things about, but I haven't crossed over yet. It is somewhere on the agenda, though!
Procreation is a responsibility, but it is NOT a right.
— Possibility
For male biology, procreation is a privilege acquired through either violent combat ("mating season") or possibly through civilizing hacks such as marriage, if and when such civilizing hack still possibly functions.
[/quote]
Bogus; you've never been in "violent" conflict; if you're a virgin, that's not why.
I've never been in anything which would amount to "violent conflict"; I've been with somewhere between 15-20 women, nor was I ever married.
If your argument is that there's an aesthetic element to "violence", such as in the context of arts, movies, contact sports, and so on, or a couple legally and consensually engaging in "rough sex" or "domination fantasies", or a romance novel, such as one by Loretta Chase depicting a "violent" sexual fantasy, I'd argue that is not remotely comparable to literal "violence" or "violent conflict".
Anymore than watching an action film or playing a "violent" video game, and whatever "fantasies" it might related to, is the same as literally engaging in violence or literally "wanting" to engage in violence
So no, what you're asserting isn't remotely applicable to a 1st world country. I fail to see what your point is.
The fact that biology and lack of basic impulse control pays a role in dysfunctional human behaviors is well-documented by the law, and it's philosophy (such as distinguishing between crimes of "passion", or impulsive ones, versus rational "crimes), as well as fair amount common sense, particularily during adolescence when male and female "hormones" are at their peak - but that's still a far cry from what it is you're saying or advocating, whether you want to invoke biology, or anything else.
Example - Justin Bieber is considered a "teen idol" or "sex symbol", Justin Bieber is not a "tough guy" stereotypically "macho" guy, he's a 'soft, sensitive, musician", yet he has many more female admirers than your average convicted murder or rapist does (regardless whether or not you want to point out that murders and rapists have had "admirers", who is bored or creepy enough to care, honestly?)
Even in the animal kindgom, your claim about "violent conflict" simply isn't true or without exception, in some cases, an "aesthetic" element, such as a male peacock impressing a potential mate with its beautiful feathers, or a mating dance, rather than "violent conflict" may actually be preferred, for example:
(And for what its worth, most historical "ladies men", whether fictional or exaggerated, were not known for being particularly "violent" or aggressive, in fact, ironically many of them may have seemed "effiminate", preferring to "woo" a woman with music, poetry, lyrics, and so on and so forth rather than "violence".)
Even the Bible has the "Song of Solomon".
https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-02-13/12-animal-mating-rituals-prove-love-about-good-dance-moves
You've yet to substantiate that.
I don't think you know what you're talking about?
Why did the Catholic Church end up having a longer lifespan than Rome did, despite instituting monogamy and priesthood celbacy?
The default situation in biology is the mating season. As I see it, it has the greatest legitimacy of all the various approaches because it is the default way in which biological life reaffirms itself. It just works.
Not true. MRA do, but MGTOW don't.
MGTOW are simply bailing out. They do not ask for anything to change. It just reflects the growing trend of men bailing out from the workforce and out of "relationshits". They just don't want to be someone else's plough horse on the "plantation".
It is not possible to change anything to society for MGTOW to change their mind. They have decided to move on, and they are simply not coming back.
Given the fact that I also believe that western society is beyond salvation, I agree with MGTOW and not with MRA, whose ambitions I consider to be pointless. I love it here in SE Asia. I am also not coming back. Ever.
[/quote]
That's not their mentality, their mentality is something akin to "Radical feminist lesbian separatism", a la Andrea Dworkin or Valerie Solanas, in which all sex or relationships are viewed as "inherently exploitative, or all sex is rape".
There is no depth, nor any sense of "higher" purpose, it is primarily just pop nihilism, consumerism, and claiming to not want women in their life, yet spend all of their free time obsessing over "women" and pornography as a whole
And who gives a fuck? Disaffected people being in bad relationships and blaming the other sex as a whole is as old and unoriginal as human nature, let alone something worthy of creating a creepy "subculture" on the basis of.
It's no open secret no matter what historical time period, archaic, or contemporary which one goes back that "marriage", on or as a legal institution first and foremost, was and is primarily pragmatic, and at worst merely a step above the "law of the Jungle" to help expeditate divorce proceedings and reduce the risk of them fighting or killing each other, the kind of nonsense one sees in Jerry Springer or other "trash TV shows'. Most marriages, if not outright miserable are certainly "less than ideal" rather than pop-RousseauIan deterministic notions of "love" and marriage with most couples not being happily married and can't be abstracted or differentiated from their pragmatic factors as well as their romantic ones.
This again, has nothing to do with arrested development and immaturity, so much as just a commonsensical thing as well, which people stuck in miserable marriages or situations deny either through sheer "naivete" or self-deception; much as many which might even be called "feminist" notions would be against the anti-intellectual idea of a person, especially a young person jumping or rushing into a marriage, childbirth, or a relationship, at the expense of personal maturation, or other life goals and pursuits, particularily those of an intellectual or creative variety, which again, "civilized" people already do and take it for granted, given that we aren't pre-literate 3rd world tribesmen getting "engaged" at the age of 10 and couplating with our "wives" at the age of 14 years old, at the expense of 1st world luxuries, such as literacy, mathematics, and so on.
Most people would likewise admire and consider a businessman, scientist, or other professional, whether Adam Smith, or Issac Newton, or Saint Paul in the Bible (who said himself that not every man should marry necessarily) both of whom may have never married, to be a better civilizational hallmark than a man or woman who has fathered 5 kids with 5 different partners by the age of 18, lacking any means of financial support or personal maturity in regards to raising the children they brought into the world.
Marriage is and has only been "sacred" in the context of a church, a couples' vows, or anything else, this again is common sense to anyone who's as so much as read a single book by a mature marriage or relationships author (whether or not they agree with the couple's premise), whether from a data era such as the 1800s, when overall standards of "modesty" were presumably "higher" (hence writings like Married Love), or in a more contemporary day and age in which books like "Men are from Venus, Women are from Mars", are or were popular.
The fact that something this basic, simple, and commonsensical has somehow morphed into silly and false "red pill/blue pill" dichotomies is probably more of a negative sign of the times than any of the exaggerations you are referring to.
Cool, who cares?
Most of them aren't motivated enough to "move" their left butt cheek away from their sticky keyboard and "waifu' collections".
Grown "men" acting like arrested development children who still think the other sex has cooties and masturbating to cheap anime porn ("marriage, relationships, or anything else having nothing to do with this) is more of a sign of the times than anything else.
There is nothing to conceptualize. It just is what it is.
So why do the "cops" have the robbers in jail, and not the "robbers" having the cops in jail?
Quit playing CoD, it's not accurate, I would easily bet you have never thrown a punch, been in a fight, earned a black belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, or anything else. You're just aiming at the lowest hanging fruit imaginable.
For now.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
In our species, mankind, that kind of behaviour is widely considered to be mostly a waste of time. It is understandable behaviour but it is nevertheless quite useless, because it is not particularly productive.
Our species' mating and breeding strategy is very similar to a good number of bird species, such as cockatoos, where the female stays in the nest, sitting on the eggs, and later, guarding the chicks, while the male flies out to find fruits and nuts to be regurgitated in the nest.
Quoting Wikipedia on Cockatoo breeding
Pretty much every religion insists on the idea that useful sex is part of the overall breeding strategy.
I look after my three children here. I bring "the fruits and the nuts", pretty much in accordance with the basic biology of humanity and in line with Islamic-law advisories.
I consider the proper breeding strategy not to be about merely sleeping with arbitrary females. It is not that "pumping and dumping" would be hard to do here in SE Asia. Especially in Vietnam, there is a specialized class of young women doing that in exchange for not much money. So, it is certainly possible to use that kind of services for convenient "tension relief" but on the whole this behaviour can be deemed biologically low-value or even worthless.
I've never been in anything which would amount to "violent conflict"
[/quote]
Please give me more specifics, obviously "violent" conflict such as crime is an occurance, but in day-to-day life, its' irrelevant.
Quoting alcontali
In our species, mankind, that kind of behaviour is widely considered to be mostly a waste of time. It is understandable behaviour but it is nevertheless quite useless, because it is not particularly productive.
Our species' mating and breeding strategy is very similar to a good number of bird species, such as cockatoos, where the female stays in the nest, sitting on the eggs, and later, guarding the chicks, while the male flies out to find fruits and nuts to be regurgitated in the nest.
[/quote]
Your point being what? A lot of what you are saying simply "isn't" the case, in humans or in animals.
Justin Bieber is not a "macho man"; Justin Bieber does not engage in "violent conflict", Justin Bieber is considered more of a sex symbol than the average death row inmate.
Some animals use songs, beautiful feathers, mating dances to attract mates, not "violent conflict".
Tell me how that "violent conflict" has worked out for you, other than pwning noobz in CoD. You're not a macho man, not a Navy Seal, not an SAS, why don't you read an actual book by someone who has been there and done it, such as "Meditations on Violence" by Rory Miller?
---
Cool. You're point is?
You can get lots of gold and lots of sex just by being a bit more "unfriendly" than usual. So, why on earth would you politely ask for anything if it obviously works much better by slamming that person with your bare fists? Give me what I want, or else !!!
You tell me...
Oh wait... you've never done that. Instead you just join a group of effeminized MRAs asking for "big daddy government" to give them handouts, rights, and childish and fictitious things of that nature, like a petulant little child begging for his daddy to patch up his wounds which neighborhood bully gave them.
The reality is that the "feminized" Catholic Church, requiring priesthood celebacy and monogamy outlived the "rapefugees"; countries like that, such as Sub-Saharan Africa are stuck in 3rd world status, you're a white kid typing on a philosophy forum, not Sub-Saharan African warlord raping, looting, plundering anything at all.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
In terms of biology, I consider that to be low-value and even possibly worthless behaviour, and certainly not something to brag about. I do understand why a man could discretely use female "tension-relief" services against a fee, or even for free (=more dangerous), because of his current circumstances, but why boast about that? It is very akin to going to the toilet with a view on producing some bowel movements. Does it make sense to brag about how many times you may have done that today?
I've never "payed" for it, unless a date counts, I've come closer to being "payed" for it (I've had a few lonely housewives preposition me and turned it down, I never intentionally slept with or stayed with a woman who I knew was in another relationship, and have no interest in an affair or any of that childish or adolescent drama anymore).
You contradict yourself, you're now saying men should be "civilized, effminiate, and monogamous" instead of "raw, virle" men who chase after any woman they want.
"Free" is never really "free" when it is about sex. The other side usually has possibly hidden expectations. When these expectations are not fulfilled, the other side may very well try to get back at you. Just look at the Weinstein case. All these women slept with him hoping that he would land them an acting gig as an actress. I am sure some of them did get what they wanted, but the ones who didn't now scream "rape!". This problem rarely occurs if you finish such "casual sex" episode by paying a nominal fee.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
That can go even more badly wrong, because in that case, there is even a second party who could possibly take an interest in such episode. If he figures you out, he may detect a vulnerability to exploit, and in that way get even with you. In my opinion, it is just not worth it. With the large number of available service providers -- every non-attached non-virgin is basically for rent here -- I don't even see why the juice would even be worth the squeeze? Furthermore, islamic-law advisories utterly condemn that kind of behaviour, i.e. sleeping with someone else's wife.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
Not at all.
First of all, it is about understanding that a man should not even want most women. I certainly don't. They are simply not fit for purpose in a more or less standard breeding strategy. They could possibly still be fit as "tension relief" service providers, paid or free, but if you organize your personal life properly, why would you even need those?
Furthermore, I have never excluded polygamy as as breeding strategy.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
In my opinion, if you are "chasing", you are probably doing it wrong.
Say that there are two cases.
Case one. You just want to get some "tension relief". In that case, it is a case of supply and demand. No need to chase. If you pay slightly more than the market price, the service providers, including the so-called "free" ones, will all be queuing to work on the gig for you.
You may only need to chase, if you want the "tension relief" service for free. Since I make way more money by working one hour than the amount that I would save by chasing free service for one hour, I think that such strategy is absurd. Middle class girls (and up) may only want to do "free" casual sex, but everybody else on lower income cannot really afford that. They will prefer monetary compensation. Note that virgins will never do "tension relief" gigs, because they can still get a much bigger bride gift ("mahar"). Again, I believe that it is better to organize your personal life in such a way that you do not even have any need for the occasional "tension relief".
Case two. You have detected a possible "keeper". Again, no need to chase. Tell her you are possibly interested in paying her bride gift ("mahar"). That is usually substantially more than just a nominal amount of money, and there are rarely many candidate suitors who are capable and willing to pay it. Therefore, you will often be the only option in town for the foreseeable future. Therefore, unless she has another interesting deal already in the making that is about to be closed, you can expect red-carpet treatment from there on. Whenever I talk about possibly "keeping" her, even just jokingly, the usual reaction is: "So, when are we beginning? It is taking way too long for you to finalize!"
People who buy a Lamboghini easily hand over $500,000 for a 200 MPH car which they can only legally drive up to 65 MPH, what's your point?
The money's either going somewhere or it isn't, and if it isn't, it's just paper and metal, so whether it's going to marriage, a family, a car, a house, a drug dealer is ultimately up to the person and their own delegation as to what, why and where.
Sure, for uglier people it is, if you're a rock star or a pro-athlete (or at least look kind of like one), some women probably give it up for free. (I'm sure it also helps if they have a husband or a boyfriend).
Per evolutionary biology or psychology, only men or members of the species at the lowest common denominator of the evolutionary hierarchy ever have to act "desperate" in regards to sex, or anything else, or possibly even resorting to rape, the "higher" members of the species have no natural want of male or female attention.
Why not? Some people spend $2.8 million on a rare baseball card, how one uses their money or what they ultimately deem it "worth" is up to them.
Maybe then he should start hitting the gym and become a male gigolo or escort, assuming he doesn't mind dating "MILFs" or "GILFs":
Blah blah blah, The majority of what you call "capitalism" is all about "feelings" and anti-thetical to anything rational, whether bare basic financial planning, accounting, time management and self-scheduling, or things even a better and more welly-adapted child could be expected to on their own.
It's primarily simply about satiating mindless, addictive short-term wants or 'needs', to the polar opposite of rationality, if the rampant obesity crisis and terrible eating habits of the slave class, which no reasonable doctor would consider "healthy" to begin with, let alone a good influence on the eating habits of children victimized by having parents prone to such an hideious illness, addiction, or quite visibly disgusting lifestyle choice is any indicator.
Very, little, if any of it deserves to be called "capitalism" in any more philosophical sense of the term, whether one is referencing Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, or anyone else, it's really just the one of the ugliness and lowest common denominators of bestial human behavior, which has existed for most if not all of human history, even prior to "capitalism" being word, akin to a starving, rabid or feral dog licking up scraps of Filet Minion out of the dumpster of a fancy French Restraunt of well-fed and satiated patrons, knowing all to well that "more" is not necessarily more, expect in the inferior and childishly addicted minds of the weak and defective, much as how a few more drinks and a bar, or a few more bites of food, can turn another wise lovely and enjoyable drink or meal into a a pile of vomit, balance and moderation being superior, of course..
I fail to see your point, as usual.
If a person is so socially inept or weak in bare basic personal boundaries, two-way communications and so on and so on and blames everything short of themselves for somehow being "unable" to do something even a more mature child or adolescent could and does, then I suppose whatever unbalanced living or marital relationship they acquire or accrue is their own fault, and elective choice so long as they choose to stay in it or perpetuate it. To some extent, people get what they deserve.
Well, according to the red-pill philosophy only 20% of the men are alphas, i.e. men with whom available women are happy to have sex for free. Most men, 80% of us, are not alphas. I do not consider myself to be an alpha either (in terms of handsome looks or celebrity status). Still, that does not matter, because a beta can trivially achieve the same results as an alpha by paying out relatively small nominal fees. Just make sure to really "exchange". Never give something for nothing. "So, ok, I will fix your car or your computer, or whatever, but what am I getting in exchange?" If she is giving it away for free to alphas, why even give her a slice of your pizza for free? "So, you urgently need $20? Then work for it. You can duly sweat on my next tension-relief gig!" "Beta orbiters" are guys who simply don't get that.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
Well, you seem to have no experience with different kinds of society. That is undoubtedly why.
Get to know people who live in other areas of the world and you may understand how these things work in their environment. I have rapidly adjusted to SE Asia, hitting the ground running. I do understand the inter-gender dynamics here, if only, because I definitely manage to get the quality results that I want. The proof is always in the pudding. ;-)
Get a life...
I never payed for it, and if any of the women I was with didn't fully enjoy my company, that's on them.
I've had some maladjusted freaks post defamatory nonsense about me and others before, I'm not bored enough to care, given that they're generally low IQ, 6th grade reading level idiots, who even know the basic laws of their on state, federal, or othersi, the bare basics of any legal court proceedings in theory and practice, and the sheer amount of time and energy spent and wasted on malicious effort to successfully "convict" something of a completely fraudulent and fabricated crime would be.
Most of these brainless idiots are too stupid or lazy to even so much as visit their local library, their local law library, or make use of their Kindles or E-readers and learn even the most basic laws of their own state, or how the legal system works and is designed to detect and prevent idiots or malicious individuals from using it in a "vexatious" way while technically trying to not actually run afoul of it, such idiots who think that if they change so much as one word in a statement which is otherwise potentially felonious extortion, that a savvy lawyer or judge wouldn't be able to spot that, or have designed and evolved the legal system to begin with to detect exactly that. Most of their "legal" advice coming from YouTube videos by randos, or inaccurate court or crime shows like CSI or Judge Judy, low level 'employees' a legal or law enforcement profession, who are too stupid, low-IQ, and otherwise socially and morally inept or maladjusted to ever have real job in the legal profession to begin with, such as an actual male or female Judge, Lawyer, or Attonery, as opposed to a dime-dozen 6th grade literate correctional officer who doesn't even know the most basic premises or legal and moral philosophy, let alone have the IQ or literacy level to even read it even if they wanted to, or low level law enforcement employee..
If you want to live in paranoia of absurdist scenarios like that, when the real life likelihood of dying in your own bathtub is more likely, be may guest, and stay addicted to whatever sensationalist, anti-intellectual, 6th grade reading level media nonsense of choice floats your hillbilly boat, I'm not losing sleep over it.
Well, according to the red-pill philosophy only 20% of the men are alphas
[/quote]
Glad to be in that 20% then as far as that philosophy goes, wish I could say the same for you, brah, lol
Still, that does not matter, because a beta can trivially achieve the same results as an alpha by paying out relatively small nominal fees. Just make sure to really "exchange". Never give something for nothing. "So, ok, I will fix your car or your computer, or whatever, but what am I getting in exchange?" If she is giving it away for free to alphas, why even give her a slice of your pizza for free? "So, you urgently need $20? Then work for it. You can duly sweat on my next tension-relief gig!" "Beta orbiters" are guys who simply don't get that.
[/quote]
Hardy har har…
Cool, I'm glad it worked out for you, even then a lot of what you're saying isn't consistent, or even necessarily true. I've had somewhat different or variable experiences.
You talk about "Asian cultures" as some ideal, despite the fact that they "family/education oriented, workaholic" cultural stereotypes of East Asian countries like Japan are quite bent on that "repressive, feminiized" male stereotype you seem to love; supposedly the "sexual repression" in cultures like that is one of the reasons why all of that weird, gross anime porn is such a "thing".
Well, the general case is that you pretty much always pay for it.
Case 1. A keeper. You will end up giving her money for household expenses. In the local culture here, you even start by paying for a substantial bride gift.
Case 2. A seemingly "free" tension-relief service provider. Watch out for Weinstein-style cases. You could end up at the receiving end of a "regret" rape accusation or other back stabbing. That could go badly wrong. There really seems to be a trend to put more and more alpha players in jail. (#metoo).
In my opinion, "free" sex is somewhat an illusion. Julian Assange was supposedly also getting the sex "for free" in Sweden, and where is he now?
Well, no.
Many of these guys only stay alpha for the time that it lasts. At some point, they will just have to revert to what other men have to do, i.e. to rely on the fact that they make good money. However, they have often never invested in developing the skills to do that. So, their stories usually do not have a happy end.
It is a bit like the high-school bullies. They do well in high school, but tend to fail miserably later in life. Again, they invested in developing the wrong skills.
Furthermore, on the opposite side, most non-attached non-virgins have their very cheap moments. Just look at what they are willing to do when they run out of cash. Preferably don't film it, because that movie will not be safe for children to watch. For a little bit more cash, they will even fake their satisfaction, if that is your thing. According to the red-pill philosophy, they can no longer pair-bond. So, they mostly fake it anyway. Nothing new there.
If you cannot see through the aforementioned individuals, then yeah, then you cannot get what you want, whatever that may be.
As I have mentioned earlier, you will get much better results in every sense with someone who has a history of chastity. As I have said before, accumulating trysts with fake individuals is simply low-value behaviour.
You're so self-contradictory it's difficult to reply to,
You talk about "uncivilized" men taking whatever woman they want, then no you're saying a man seeking "trysts" is stupid, and that he would be better off going "blue pill" or whatever it's called, and being an effiminate, married, beta male, or whatnot?
Which is it?
No, that is not how to point out a contradiction.
Try again.
And? So yes, in reality that's closer to a "traditional" thing, and less of anything remotely relevant to your allegations of "schools feminizing people" or whatever.
What's your fucking point? Anytime you engage in some kind of relationship or interaction with another person, especially some potentially maladjusted person who you barely no, there is always a "risk" in ivolved, I suppose.
And no, an ugly old man who has to show his penis to younger women isn't an "alpha", he's lonely, desperate SOB, I'ver been desperate enough to have to do that, same with a "millionaire" or supposedly "powerful" individual who is worthless, defective, and degenerate enough to waste their time molesting underage children.
You're assuming that all "rape" allegations are false simply because a woman made them (which is stupid nonsense, akin to Valerie Solanas assuming that any rape allegation is true simply because a woman made it), as far as that goes, I'll let the thinking men and women in courts of law and the procedures decide, not anti-intellectual worthless, mentally, socially and otherwise inept idiots or archaic dionsaurs on social media, who probably couldn't name a single letter of their own state or feral law to begin with speculate on that till their anime-masturbating heart is content.
Everything you say is contradictory:
East Asia is a better culture; oh but Asian men are not known for their 'virile masculinity"., as just one example.
No, no. You need to learn how to quote literally.
You cannot claim "you say" while not quoting what I have said. That is just a liberal-arts fraud. That may be how they taught you how to lie and manipulate, but I do not respond to that.
I don't think you know what "liberal arts" is, for one. I'm merely summarizing them.
Such as you talking about "statism", but being unable to define it; as far as I'm aware of, even in ancient times, whether you want to reference "Rome" or a "religious' system of government such Israel, the notion of extending the "nation, kingdom, and so on and so forth" beyond the individual, atomized "families" or "tribes" was not a recent invention at all, nor something exclusive to "secularism".
(For that matter, there is no inherent difference between "religious" or contemporary "secular" law in the sense of it being a system or institution, with "secular" systems like Common Law having evolved out of and incorporated concepts from "religious" law - in the sense that modern law imposes at least a bare minimum of morality on people by force, such as prohibiting evils such as rape, and murder it isn't any different in that way than "religious" law is; sure, ideally a person of genuine morality would be above and beyond simply "not raping or murdering" solely out of fear of the law, but regardless, that's what the institution is and does.
You also use Mafiosi who rape and "dominate" women by force and aggression as some kind of role model to champion for their supposed virility, but then talk about strict, Islamic schooling in which boys are sexually repressed and encouraged not even to look at the opposite sex, seems the polar opposite of that antisocial from of virility which you previously champion.
Oh, and I've heard of Rollo Tomoassi (which is actual the name of some obscure film character) and he's just a salesmen who isn't even doing any of the stuff he writes about, he admits himself he's "married". I no longer trust people hocking things which are to some extent just "common sense" under overly fancy or trendy names and false dichotomies (like "red pill" blue pill")- no matter what "time period" is selected or overly romanticized (such as the nonsense of "every man" having been some "warrior archetype" no matter the time period, ancient, medieval, or modern, when they are and have always been a small, and very elite section of the population, which most men having comparably more "ordinary" jobs or careers; in the worst cases, painting such a flawed and romanticized picture is almost a bit delusional and dangerous, a product of mindless media voyeurism and dumb people, such as idiots who think sports is solely about the fighting, or purely visual, sensory aspects of it, when in reality it's akin to a performance "art", with most of it being the 'internal' factors, the strategies or states' of the athletes' minds and so on and so forth.
Or as authors such as Rory Miller have written in books like "Meditations on Violence", most of the nonsense which equally dumb people and empty headed-voyeurs fantasize about, such as "combat" or use of weapons is fantasy which comes more from Michael Bay movies than "real life" combat, which he claims is ugly, quick, and brutal, with stylized combat in the mass media being more akin to a sport or theatre performance than an actual "fight", "war" or anything of that sort in theory, or in practice.
They want all men to perish. Not all of these women, but most of them. Their hate is what I hate. They are violent in their writings, they just want to see blood.
You never encountered such rabid feminists? I would be surprized to hear you haven't.
It is a trivially simple definition. Statism is the practice of government increasingly taking over tasks that originally belonged to non-government. Simple, no?
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
Was education a government task back then? Healthcare? Dealing with marriage and divorce? I don't think so.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
You are again trying to use some liberal-arts lying and manipulating. If I have said something, you should be able to quote it literally. Otherwise, you are just inventing that. Your strategy of lying and manipulating does not work in a written medium, because it is too easy to go back end double check. In my opinion, you are a born liar.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
In what sense does that even matter? His writings seem to be influential in the "manosphere". He has a good pen. I am not going to criticize him for no reason at all. You are also a born black-mouther and bad-mouther.
All you have demonstrated up till now are truths about yourself: The fact that you routinely lie, manipulate, black-mouth, and that you are fundamentally dishonest, confrontational, and insincere.
Was education a government task back then? Healthcare? Dealing with marriage and divorce? I don't think so.
Yes, it most certainly was, have you read the Old Testament, for example? Such the government regulating marriage and punishments for adultery, and whatnot?
What you're calling "liberal arts" is nonsense, I'm not quoting you literally, I'm merely paraphrasing.
According to you, the Peruvian Mafia is going to "lead the one man wolfpack" or whatever; and you use their antisocial behaviors such as raping women as evidence of their "machismo".
Who cares, anyone who can write can potentially gain a following, he admitted himself he was married.
Nonsense, you're defensive simply because your inconsistences and absurdities have been called out.
Who cares what some dime a dozen freak or fringe figure like Valerie Solanas thinks? I don't believe that the majority of women are that misanthropic or otherwise maladjusted, so please tell me why "they" are relevant enough to even acknowledge to begin with?
I have the same opinion about those idiotic and irrelevant "MGTOW" and"SJWS" manbabies, and other assorted social media oddities.
I care.
Why?
I am positive you paid for it in some way, by time, effort, maybe false promises, whatever, I this case, alcantali is right. Sex is never free. The idea that male and female sexuality is the same is ludicrious.
LOL, now you are claiming that girls are innately inferior in match. While claiming there is no gender difference. Paragon of consistency, are we?
LOL, now you are claiming that girls are innately inferior in match.
[/quote]
It's spelled "math".
And no, a female chessmaster would be superior at it to an "average" man who is not a chessmaster, regardless of whether there tend to be "innate" differences, such as the positive correlation in medical studies between testosterone and higher-level mathematical and spatial reasoning abilities.
So again, in practice, at least as far as "arbitrary" claims against women or others on the bases of averages or approximations alone, which don't actually apply on an individual or meritious bases is rather fallacious, and ultimately, more often then not seems to boil down to attempting to win a silly "argument", rather than use such information, averaging's, or data in anything akin to a meaningful way.
Reading comprehension problems_? Your claim that education favours boys if it stresses math IMPLIES that you think girls are inferior in math. That is all I referred to,
In the event when I said education is increasingly changed to favour girls, I was not referring to math.
Try to READ before commenting.
Reading comprehension problems_? Your claim that education favours boys if it stresses math IMPLIES that you think girls are inferior in math. That is all I referred to,
In the event when I said education is increasingly changed to favour girls, I was not referring to math.
No, I don't believe that, in practice, girls are all necessarily "inferior" in math, regardless of the positive correlations between testosterone and mathematical ability.
Nor did I claim the "education system" favors boys, just that I've heard people make assertions in both eras, such as It treating boys like 'defective girls', or girls like 'defective' boys, or whatnot, which is why I no longer buy into any to these blanket claims or assertions with anything more than a grain of salt.
Unles someone can provide something akin to the usage or meaning of these 'averages' and the archaic methods and approximations upon or by which said averages are actually used to begin with, in anything akin to a practical contest, I'm not too concerned about having childish "debates" about them, if the primary aim is simply to sell some intellectually vapid propaganda or win an argument which has no practical relevance or application in "real life" beyond solely the "winning" of the silly argument and all of the nonsensical implications of the argument to begin with.
An example might be "Cathy Whatshername" making a silly argument rife with logical fallacies, by and for those of a 100 IQ at most, or 6th grade reading level, based on some silly little archaic 19th century reductionist methodology used in similar ways in favor of archaisms such as "scientific racism", and other silliness, such as likely not even knowing the bare basics of how a knife or weapon would ever be used in actual violent conflict, as opposed to cheesy action movies which are more theatrics or performance than anything else.
Which even during the outdated day any age in which such silly little methodologies and the various non-sequiturs, inconsistencies, and logical fallacies they are or were predicated on to begin with, was more or less known to be outdated as far as any serious legal or moral philosophical discussion is or was concerned, such as in the Common Law system, and the legal and moral philosophy which it is founded on or predicated on to begin with, rendering her nonsense obsolete and more or less irrelevant to anyone above a 6th grade reading level or 100 IQ, much as most if not all of the sensationalist, voyeuristic nonsense is based on similar fallacies and appealing to outdated, fears, sentiments, superstitious, immaturities, arrested development, and other maladies, my honest belief is that simply reading higher-level books based on some merit or cultural validity which has stood something akin to the test of time would render the majority of this ADHD, lost intellectual, moral, and economic common denominator stuff irrelevant and obsolete.
Again, who are these "people", in most cases what you're referring to has nothing to do with anything specifically called "feminism", but rather just lowest common denominator human behaviors and nature, have existed and been documented in some form or another, long before there was anything specifically called "feminism".
Much as a lot of the gripes about the court system, such as "divorce rape" or whatever they call it, Ironically has more to do with "traditional" ism or legal holdovers from archaic 19th century systems, and so on and so forth, such as presuming by default that the man "makes more money" or isn't as fit to nurture the child, hence the alleged alimony biases which people are discussing.
As far as a legal institution, "sacredness" being something in the context of couples, churches or other things entirely - is incredibly naïve, pop Rousseauian determinism. so if anything I would lay blame to that on persona apathy, denialism, a lack of self investment in the relationship or marriage and making it better instead of worse - likely just another notch on the 50% divorce rate statistics when all is said and done, without laying sole blame to one or the other partner - to begin with rather than anything unoriginal enough to merit these ridiculous cultural fads and identities.
Why do I care?
Because.
(This is great philosophy, innit. Let's stop this now. You can still have the last word, I won't reply to that in this mini-thread.)
Testosterone made me a mathematical prodigy, I'd venture.
I fail to understand your point, or why you're posting here but now wanting to "end" the discussion.
As far as "radical, man-hating feminists" like Valerie Solanas or Andrea Dworkin, they're a fringe and irrelevant minority, not to mention misanthropy or "sexual resentment" is as old as human nature, long before there was anything called "feminism", I've heard that even Plato wrote about it, as have many ancient texts.
Regardless, I do believe that plenty of people do not take a "nihilistic" extreme, either complete loathing of the other sex as a whole, or a belief that no one should marry, reproduce, and so on and so on.
Perhaps in the case of someone, for example who was severely sexually absued as a child, I'd be much more sympathetic, but in the case of a Minecraft addict going "incel" because Taylor Swift won't respond to his PM messages on Facebook, I'm not quite as sympathetic, no.
For that matter, there "are" people, men and women, unusual or not, who have never married pr possibly been celebrate their whole life, and didn't not manifest such a thing in the psychosis and depravity that we see associated with the John Hinkley Jr. wannabes known as "Incels", or whatnot.
Realistically, I do not even believe that the "sex", really is the primary thing to begin with (given that an incel's dick doesn't even know the difference between his 'right hand' and an actual vagina, the body is apparently thing of fairly simple pleasures).
In comparison, I believe it's much of a pride, ego, or vanity thing, which goes beyond "sex" and manfests itself in mental or psychological disturbances, this is why I haven't seen many "incels" spending their time looking for a chubby, Minecraft addicted girlfriend who might actually have sex with them, but rather seem obsessed with hitting on the top 10% of the world's hottest chicks.
But you SAID it. That was your argument, remember? Jeeze....
I don't want to end the discussion. I just wanted to end this branch:
"Who cares?"
"I care."
"Why?"
"Because."
I am all for supporting more debate in the OTHER areas of discussion.
You were referring, I reckon, to geography and English history?
Are there any other subjects in school? It's been a long time for me, and I can't remember.
I was referring to the teaching style and rules, not to a particular subject.
YOU claimed that women are inherently inferior in math, while at the same time insisting that all is equal. Your contradiction, not mine. Live with it, and don´t try to change the subject.
It is this assumption that I disagree with. They do not want all men to perish - that’s just your interpretation of their writings. I acknowledge that the majority of mainstream feminist writing portrays masculine culture as a harmful force in itself (which I don’t agree with, by the way), but that’s not the same thing as what you’re talking about at all.
You’re describing violent hatred towards an opportunity for women to experience cathartic healing from abuse and violence, because you recognise but refuse to acknowledge that behaviour supported and encouraged by masculine culture contributes to this. In my view, domestic abuse and violence requires both men and women to acknowledge their cultural contribution and collaborate to effect change. But whenever men assume the defensive position, angry feminists will fill the attack role.
Just as whenever women portray themselves as a ‘damsel in distress’, violent men will fill the role of defender and master. Behaviour supported and encouraged by female culture contributes to domestic abuse and violence, too - but men are not the ones at risk of perishing here, so don’t be so defensive. It’s not going to harm you to hear a verbal attack on masculine culture, and acknowledge the truth behind it.
Men and women are NOT opposites in fixed roles - this is the conceptual structure that causes the most damage. We are not two halves of one whole, or two ends of a spectrum. Gender is part of the diversity of humanity. Just as ‘race’ is no longer portrayed as a single value based on skin or eye colour, facial features, body shape, etc, so, too, ‘gender’ is not a binary based on genitalia or other bodily features, incorporating levels of spatial or mathematical ability, interoception, physical capacity or sexual appetite, to name but a few.
If you genuinely feel threatened by women supporting each other against the actions of some men, ask yourself why. Given that you would undoubtedly support and defend victims of violence if you could distance your own identity from the perpetrators, what is it about this situation that distresses you? Are you ashamed to be associated with men who prey on women and trap them in cycles of abuse and violence? Does it bother you that you struggle to distance yourself from them culturally?
I don’t refer to myself as a ‘feminist’ because I don’t support the current of hatred against men and masculine culture in general that appears to motivate feminist activism. But I will call you on your violent hatred against support for women recovering from violent and abusive behaviour, simply because you cannot dissociate your identity from the offenders. I am not plotting against you or against masculine culture, but against the violent and abusive behaviour it supports, encourages and defends. I will do the same to women who assume the ‘victim’ position simply because they’re female.
We need to be mindful of ignorant assumptions, and recognise that how we conceptualise masculinity can change without men perishing.
I think that, in the West, men increasingly distrust women and do not believe a word they say. Men have learned to safely assume that everything she says, is a manipulative lie. Even if it is occasionally not a lie, it is better to convince yourself that it is one. Better safe than sorry. In the physical space, for reasons of security, interact only with other men. Furthermore, whatever romantic ideas you thought you would act upon, go and do that in another jurisdiction. It costs usually less than $100 to fly out of the sexual danger zone of the West to the nearest-by free country.
And you’re not addressing the supposed threat of women supporting each other against the violent and abusive actions of some men. You’re only expressing a general fear and misunderstanding of women - in the same way that women have expressed a general fear and misunderstanding of men for centuries.
It’s a debilitating situation to suffer from predation and the dishonesty of a potential partner’s words. To feel that you are only ‘safe’ in the company of your own sex. This is what women have been experiencing for centuries. What is it you are protecting? Your monetary value? Your dignity? Your freedom?
You do realise that as women we understand this situation all too well. This is common ground. Why must we draw battle lines on the grounds of gender? Why can’t we dismantle the illusion that it’s the ‘opposite sex’ who is to blame, and instead strive to promote integrity, patience and self-awareness in ALL our interactions, particularly those of a sexual or romantic nature - regardless of gender?
You are either mistaking me for someone else, or else you notoriously put words in the mouth of people.
You are... despicable in your building arguments.
You are... a megalomaniac, little smut of a control-freak.
What the heck is "don't try to change the subjec"? Are you some sort of authority figure? In your head, maybe. You can't tell people on this forum what to do and what to say. You don't have that power invested in you by anyone. You are completely disoriented about your role on this forum, about the nature of this forum, and about your place and function on this forum.
Your anger is futile. You are a nobody, and you'd better get used to that idea.
I think that, in the West, men increasingly distrust women and do not believe a word they say. Men have learned to safely assume that everything she says, is a manipulative lie. Even if it is occasionally not a lie, it is better to convince yourself that it is one. Better safe than sorry. In the physical space, for reasons of security, interact only with other men. Furthermore, whatever romantic ideas you thought you would act upon, go and do that in another jurisdiction. It costs usually less than $100 to fly out of the sexual danger zone of the West to the nearest-by free country.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I'm not sure you know what makes a lie a lie to begin with, if anything it just sounds like you suffer from a severe communications deficit, and chalk your own linguistic ineptitude up to 'lies' on the part of others.
I used to live in the West. I grew up there. It is true that other societies make more sense to me. The less a society is westernized, the better I tend to like it. I saw the West becoming worse and worse, actually until it became the horror story that it is today.
Quoting Possibility
Well, if a woman starts black mouthing you and even spreading outright lies about you, it can be very damaging to your reputation as a man. As I have said, better safe than sorry.
You see, Weinstein is undoubtedly an arsehole, just like pretty much anybody who has the power to recruit or reject aspiring actresses. Power corrupts. It is so obvious that he could extract sex out of these girls, in exchange for some vague promises. Still, it takes two to tango. These candidates could also have picked something else to do, instead of pursuing a career in which they would incessantly have to trade sex for opportunities. You can see the same phenomenon at the office. Sex is a powerful tool to convince the boss to promote you or just not to fire you.
Quoting Possibility
That is pretty much what I think it is. The indiscriminate mixing of the sexes is incredibly threatening both to men and to women. Just keep the sexes physically separate, and we would trivially avoid the horror story that is now unfolding.
Quoting Possibility
In fact, men do not want to draw battle lines between men and women. It is just that people are misguided and even foolhardy. Instead of admitting the problem, they will just double down on the indiscriminate mixing of the sexes. They'd rather burn down the place down to the ground than to admit that they are wrong.
Quoting Possibility
Dating has turned out to become a complete nightmare. It wasn't a good idea in the first place, but look at what it has degenerated into: Tinder hookups. In the greater light of things, arranging marriages make so much more sense. Still, people are foolhardy. They will never admit that they are wrong. The entire thing will have to crash and burn first, and even then they will insist that they still know better. I have already moved on, and moved elsewhere, because I am absolutely sure that the problem cannot be solved.
And vice versa. So what? Is this ‘reputation as a man’ going to affect anything except your ability to get laid?
Quoting alcontali
One should not have to trade sex for opportunities in the film industry OR in the office. Are you suggesting that women simply limit their potential to careers where there are no men? Better safe than sorry? Segregation is not the way towards peaceful co-existence. Surely we’ve realised this by now...
Well no, it may even land you in jail.
Quoting Possibility
I do not think that aspiring actresses necessarily care much about that. If she is not attached, and not a virgin either, her price can drop very low. In fact, that phenomenon is not even limited to actresses. If she is thirsty, she may even do it for a glass of water; or if she is hungry, trade it for a hamburger. There is no bottom to the price, actually. For quite a few women, sex is just a tool that they happily monetize, and not necessarily for much money. Weinstein merely decided that they could bring it on. It wasn't strictly necessary to give him sex, for the actress to get the gig -- she would probably also have gotten it without -- but her price was generally, probably even lower than that. If she gives it away for free, just an hour after meeting someone in a bar, why not use it to appease a guy who picks candidates for acting gigs? She would obviously be getting more out of letting Weinstein have his way, than out of the guy from the bar, who would not even buy her a coffee in the morning. With the guy from the bar, she is probably the one paying for the condom, while Weinstein would surely allow her to put it on her expense note.
Just the incels and psychopaths.
That wasn't my assertion, no; that was me replying to Alcontali's post.
I don't totally disagree with what you said. I find that the entire thing is just manufacturing of pure sensationalist clickbait nonsense based on the absolute dumbest gender clichés and stereotypes known to man and woman kind.
Sorry, I'll never be sympathetic with this; a "rich" fellow like Weinstein or others caught in sex scandals obviously had enough money that even if they were too ugly and repellant to attract female attention spontaneously, could, at very least have spent all of the money they wanted to on prostitutes.
So, to lower themselves to such an inferior level as to make inappropriate advances at women, is really quite sad and pathetic, even more so in the case of ones who are so evolutionarily and otherwise worthless that they stooped to molesting little girls or boys.
This is based on your in-depth understanding of how women think and what they care about - or just on your wounded ego? Your understanding of women is clearly limited to media portrayal and the gripes of insecure men and wounded egos. It seems clear to me that you know absolutely zero about real women, and that you’ve narrowly escaped the incel culture in the West by seeking a niche where you can conceal your disrespect and direct your hatred towards ‘Western culture’, when what you really hate is how you saw yourself.
Most women would see your insincerity and contempt from a mile away.
Ha aha ah ;-) That is the "who hurt you?" argument. Youtube is full of funny videos on that subject!
Quoting Possibility
I will ask my wife. Maybe she agrees! ;-)
Quoting Possibility
The qualification "narrowly" is a bit of a stretch, given the fact that it takes less than $100 to fly out of the West to places where there is no "incel culture".
The problem of the incels is probably a bit different.
First of all, they may be a bit too feminized by their single-mother family background and the public-school indoctrination camps to do well, even in other areas of the world. According to the red-pill philosophy, "woke" men, i.e. "white knights" are thoroughly and universally disliked by women. In that view, if a man buys into the feminist ideology, he will probably have to forsake sexual relationships. Incels are deemed to be men who believe the falsehoods that (western) women say about themselves, and who therefore fail at achieving anything.
In that sense, if a man wants sexual relationships, he must first start by never believing a word that women say. The key to success in that realm is a healthy distrust and disbelief.
Quoting Possibility
That is probably a gross oversimplification. These other non-western cultures are highly skeptical of the western one. If you want to fit in here, you must reject many western ideas, especially, in the realm of inter-gender dynamics. If you don't, the locals will end up despising you.
Quoting Possibility
Well, not really. Your SMV (Sexual-Market Value) is a very local thing. It is different in different circumstances and in different places in the world.
For example, there are lots of western men who have a relatively low SMV back home, and who do incredibly well here. Just to give you one example, a man who is short, will not do particularly well in Europe or the USA, while his shorter stature is absolutely no problem in SE Asia, as he may even be taller than the average here. Some of these shorter guys can actually even be seen binging here ... ;-)
Furthermore, making a decent living is at a premium in many areas in the world. So, unlike in the West, potentially being a good provider is something that even the younger women quickly notice outside the West. People's priorities are different in different circumstances. Just don't be feminized as a man, i.e. "blue-pilled" in red-pill lingo, because that simply does not work anywhere in the world.
Quoting Possibility
Well, there is the well-known phenomenon of the "bad boys", who apparently do really well with women. Part of the secret is: never give anybody a higher status than they truly deserve. High-value female candidates are staunchly chaste. They carefully protect their integrity. On the other hand, if you simply know that she is just trash, then treat her accordingly. I can certainly be sincerely contemptuous when that is my opinion. Why not? Apparently, these women even prefer it like that! ;-)
Furthermore, outside the West, it is certainly not about "most" women. The ones deserving of contempt are just a relatively small minority elsewhere.
It is not his wealth that did it. It is his position.
Even a simple nightclub bouncer has that power. He can let people in or refuse them entry. You will immediately notice that there are girls who will offer sex in exchange for his favours. That is why even bouncers have an endless stream of trysts with these silly girls.
Even staff at an HR department can do that. He regularly interviews women. He calls the ones that he fancies over the phone to meet him privately. He does not even need to promise the woman that she will get hired. The simple fact that being on good terms with him could possibly help her getting hired, is enough for lots of women to offer sex to him.
As I have said before, the price of sex can drop very low for a non-attached non-virgin. What does it cost her anyway? So, she could do it for only half a vague promise, or so. The consideration that "I want to get along with this guy" could actually be enough already.
All you need to be, is some gatekeeper of sorts to a resource, and then you can easily turn that into an endless stream of sex.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
Money is actually more difficult to use in order to get sex.
It costs lots of money just to show that you have lots of money. Furthermore, if you do that, you will first and foremost attract women who are specialized in resource extraction. Hence, it is not necessarily a good strategy. It is certainly an expensive one.
So, no, if you want a stream of endless sex, set up or buy even a small modelling agency, or so. Select the girls who will get modelling gigs and the ones who won't. That will get you going. You can be the most ugly man in the world, but you will still end up with enormous amounts of sex with otherwise pretty girls.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
That probably does not even exist. With just a little bit of power, that man will not be too ugly or repellent. If you deal with sales representatives to figure out what your company will be buying, some of these female sales reps will spontaneously offer sex for you to buy her stuff. She won't care if you are ugly. She wants to close the sale in order to keep her job and make some commission. Sex can be very, very cheap ...
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
Professional prostitutes are relatively expensive and even cumbersome in comparison. The cheapest sex is with women who use sex as a cheap tool to achieve something else.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
It is the women themselves who were making the advances. Weinstein didn't have to lift a finger for that to happen. All he did, was sitting in that chair, with his fat belly and ugly grin, selecting female candidates for actressing gigs. He could have been farting the most stinking winds while he was doing that, it would not have made a difference. The woman would have ignored it and still have had sex with him on the spot.
It's full of videos on Minecraft and My Little Pony as well. As an "alpha" man, it's... interesting to see that you consider random YouTube videos to be your primary source of information on things.
Why not just ask your wife's boyfriend instead?
But in serious, you now seem a bit contradictory; as far as evolutionary psychology goes which seems to be what you're deferring things to, almost any man or woman can meet the bare minimum qualifications to "get married", albeit with many possible varying degrees of dysfunctionality and pragmatics at stake.
So, no, if you're holding up "being married" to "some random woman" as an "ideal", that says very little of your supposed 'alpha' credentials, since an "alpha" would be focusing on higher quality marriage or relationships, not holding up "being married" at all as major accomplishment, if "trash TV" such as Jerry Springer and Maury is any indicator. It wouldn't shock me if your wife wears the pants in that relationship, not to mention how contradictory this is to much of the so-called "red pill" advice that advises against getting married at all, at least legally or formally.
I've had about 15-20 partners off and on, and where I'm at in life right now, I'm much happier to not be married, and not because of any "marriage nihilism" specifically. (If anything my nihilism is directed at the immaturity and idiocy of others and how little they value their marriages or achieving anything akin to a healthy marital foundation to begin with, no matter what century's laws or definitions of marriage one wishes to invoke).
What I heard is that there is an "incel subculture" in East Asia or Japan, which is where all of the childish stereotypes and jokes about single men masturbating to "waifu pillows" come from. In fact, I almost thought the whole thing originated in "Japan" and made it way to the west like a badly translated anime cartoon series.
You've failed to substantiate what you mean by "public" school indoctrination camps, or why the same phenomina wouldn't exist in "private" school, "home" school, or any other K-12 oriented scholastic setting.
If by that, you mean co-ed education, then yes, coed education exists in private and "religious" schools as well, so this just sounds like empty, histrionic rhetoric, predicated on sensationalism and disproportionate reporting of unlikely events, usually if not always predicated on pandering to the stupidest phobias, insecurities, and infantile dinosaur sentiments and stereotypes imaginable, to the point that it's almost laughable that anyone outside of a Cartoon Network show or "Idiocracy" character could ever, or even have ever believed this nonsense to begin with.
As far as "doing well in other areas of the world", you used an Einstein quote several times; I find that ironic, since apparently you think that Einstein wasted his time on his intellectual endeavors, and ignored more productive life pursuits, such as dropping out of college, and fathering 10 babies with 10 different baby momma's by age 18.
I'm glad that you defer yourself to what random Youtubers, many of them likely virgins, invoking a philosophy which is just a poor mans pop version of Frederick Nietzschean existentialism.
You're going to need to define what you mean by "feminist ideology".
If you're mean some kind of radical feminism, a la Andrea Dworkin or Valerie Solanas (e.x. all sex is rape or "exploitation"), then that's basically what the "incels" or "MGTOW" or whatever they're called is, just radical anti-sexual feminism for men, so I suppose that's a given.
But sans that, either give specifics in regards to what you call "feminist ideology" or please stop wasting valuable time saying the same histrionic things over and over.
You're married guy who spends all your time watching YouTube videos and posting on philosophy forums, and bragging about being married to some plain Jane as though it's an actual accomplishment, sounds like the spitting definition of "white knight" to me.
1. What falsehoods, and what makes them falsehoods without circular reasoning?
2. Why do you keep repeating the myth that only "Western" women do this and say that? Everything you've been shown, so far, as far as history is concerned when your romanticism for "non-Western" countries has been removed doesn't stand up to snuff or sound historical interpretation.
Much as much of what you're calling "feminism" has more to do with stereotypical, ubiquitous aspects of human nature which have always been around in some form or variety or another, whether or not there is or was anything specifically called "feminism", which marital or relational dysfunctions being documented in many ancient texts, whether the Bible, ancient Roman theater, or anything else.
I don't believe that is the problem with "incels" no.
I've met guys who were into things as stereotypically dorky as "Brony" fandom, and managed to "get laid" with someone who had a similar interest, much as how many of the fellows to which your 'male feminist' stereotype applies are "married", albeit in many cases dysfunctional, and they or their wife sadly not taking rightful advantage of no-fault divorce laws; misery loves company, so I suppose some people would rather be miserably married than "alone", something again having no inherent relation to "feminism".
The primary problem with "incels" that I've heard or seen is that they are disturbed and primarily obsessed with "celebrity women", or stereotypically "hot chicks", sometimes in an almost John Hinkley Jr. like fashion.
Much as there is nothing remotely original or insightful about your "white knight" stereotypes, or the documented notion or phenomena of being "nice" in an unhealthy OCD or "legalistic" way either, it's been documented by many authors on psychology (e.x. No More Mr. Nice Guy).
Even then, if you were using this to advocate some type of moral nihilism, well according to you - you're a married guy who posts on a philosophy forum and watches YouTube videos, you are not a gangster, a rapist, or any of the "feral" masculinity you fantasize about (which, even more ironically, runs completely contradictory to your statements about "traditionalism", as you could easily argue that "religion", rather than or in addition to "feminism" makes men "effeminate" by encouraging "Western" notions such as chastity, marriage, committed relationships, instead of that 'feral', antisocial masculinity that you romanticize from the mobster movies or GTA video games that you play.
(Similar to how you complain about "divorce" rape, when most of the current, un-updated laws in relation to marriage or "divorce" are legal holdovers from the 19th century, predicated on stereotypes or assumptions about men being the sole or main income provider, and women working full-time jobs or careers being less common, so in many ways, that is more of a case of "traditionalism" or archaic "legalism" at work, rather than feminism).
So no, so far you've only demonstrated a long, incoherent rant predicated on irrationality and inconsistencies, which doesn't hold up to snuff.
It is not his wealth that did it. It is his position.
I don't believe you've done any of this, you're just repeating various 'stories' you've heard or been told (with varying degrees of accuracy or authenticity).
Regardless, your correlation of "alpha" with "having money" seems rather flawed; for example, a pro-athlete like Tom Brady, or a male boy band singer like Justin Bieber would have many women wanting to 'have sex' with him for free.
While someone like... err Bill Gates has more money than the entirety of Hollywood combined, but is not typically regarded as a "sex symbol".
My personal experience is that I've never had "a lot of money", I've had a few gigs which "payed well" in the short term, but that's about it; I've had between 15-20 partners, most of them were fairly 'hot', I did not spend much money on any one of them; some of them were married or dating (but I didn't know about this until after the fact or ever attempt to get with a woman I knew was already with a man). I even had had 1 or 2 women offer me sex for free.
Your conflation of money with "alpha" also renders all of your "incel/male feminist" rhetoric irrelevant, since who cares if a guy is a "male feminist" or "white knight"; if he just "makes enough money" he can have access to all of the hookers or potential trophy wives he wants.
You have no reason to believe this unilaterally, beyond just blind assumption reinforced by confirmation bias. Anymore than whatever strain of 'radical feminism' or what not believes any and all nonsense accusations simply because he was a "man" (courts and the court processes were designed with the rightful purpose and intent of filtering out irrelevant nobodies, gossip mongers, and otherwise socially irrelevant vermin like the above, in favor of rationality and formal procedure, which is why I am glad for them and their existence).
As far as idiots and silly irrelevant gossipers hocking whatever little opinion they want to for whatever childish reason they want to, or taking bets on court cases like it's a game of Survivor, I tend to ignore them and defer them and their worthless, inane little opining to the 'irrelevant' bucket and read about the details of the actual court cases.
Which ones?
Allowing low-status men to marry has become a complete nightmare. It wasn't a good idea in the first place, but look at what it has degenerated into: grown men watching "red pill" YouTube videos and posting fantasies about the "mafia" and virile "antisocial" masculinity which come more from Grand Theft Auto video games than any real life experience.
In the greater light of things, letting the king just castrate low-status males like alcontali and forcing eunuch to serve in the Haram, rather than wasting precious bandwidth posting on "red pill / Incel / Mgtow" forums makes so much more sense. Still, people are foolhardy; they will never admit that they are wrong.
Not unless I move to a Muslim country; now go ask your wife's boyfriend.
There are no "Muslim countries". There are only Muslim neighbourhoods and then the overall Ummah, i.e. the global Muslim congregation. Even the Ottoman empire was not a so-called "Muslim country". There were three congregations organized in the Ottoman empire: Muslim, Christian, and Jewish. There may be Muslim-majority countries, but I do not necessarily find them more pleasant, because none of them really exudes the old Ottoman atmosphere of "One Thousand and One Nights".
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
You really want 80 lashes, don't you? ;-)
If you plead that you are only a slave, and they believe you, then the lashing will be reduced to just 40. ;-)
I would love to watch that: 80 vigorously administered lashes. Remember Michael Fay? He got four strokes of the cane in Singapore. If you keep saying that kind of things to random people then one day or the other you will be able to say hello on my behalf to the vigilante who will lash your butt to smithereens! ;-)
(By the way, is that the reason why half your butt is already gone?)
Anecdotal evidence is, in most if not all ways, superior to other forms of evidence, such as inferior so-called "empirical" evidence, or what is often so erroneously claimed to be such, or based on such, by many, if not most, particularily ignorant members of uneducated or undereducated "masses".
[quote[
And there are real, very demonstrable and very obvious differences between genders and age groups. In human society. Which really should be obvious to anyone not blinded by ideology.
[/quote]
Unless you can provide some actual context in which the differences matter or are practically relevant beyond pure speculation or 'folk wisdom', as far as society in general goes, rather than just stating that the differences "exist" in a vaccum without understanding what that actually means, in theory or practice, I'm not particularly interested.
As far as your other claims, like I said, I've heard people make both kinds of claims, whether it's you claiming education is "girl-oriented", or claims that it is "boy-oriented" due to its emphasis on mathematics, and a presumably inferiority in that area on the part of girls or women due to testosterone's positive correlation with higher level mathematical and spatial reasoning ability.
Regardless of this, I'd say it's not practical reason to discriminate against a girl or a woman who is a mathematician or a chess player, which is why anecdotal evidence, in this regard, is superior as far as a holistic view on human nature is concerned, as opposed to merely stating the "existence" of the differences as though to win an argument, or to ignore or discriminate against those to whom the "differences" don't actually apply in practice.
Regarding your claims about "incels", I'm curious and wondering?
How does one prove that they or someone else is an "incel" to begin with? How many girls do they have to ask on a date, or attempt to 'seduce' and get rejected by in order for them to qualify as an "incel"?
Are they 'hitting on' girls or women with... similar interests or life goals, whether we are talking anime, Minecraft, webcomics about fascist frogs, Pokémon, "My Little Pony fandom", or anything else stereotypically 'nerdy' or 'unpopular', or are they hitting on the top 10% of the world's hottest chicks, a la John Hinckly Jr. or some other self-styled "gentleman" who thinks Taylor Swift is entitled to date him because he's "nice" or something aesthetically repellant like that?
if they are simply motivated by "sex", have the attempted to go "gay", and if they refuse simply because of preference for a woman, does that still make them an "incel"?
Please elaborate, I refuse to associate with them or their so-called "communities" beyond mere voyeuristic curiosity, given that I don't think my aesthetic and cultural sense could stomach it; particularily if we are talking about 50+ year old man children with a serious case of arrested development or maturity, rather than merely angsty tweens who got rejected by their HS crush.
In what little contact I had the misfortune of making with those of said depraved and archaic mindsets and aesthetic defectiveness and attempting to make sense of the logic or rational behind their disaffected "worldview' or "perspective", I attempted to talk about of common sense or rationality to them, but I personally find that most of them are too dysfunctional to help, at least for a wannabe "good Samaritan" like me, and their worldview is predicated on the breeding of disaffectedness and complete lack of self awareness, or even basic economic sense as much as what the so-called "red pill" economics' axioms are based or predicated on to begin with.
Then again, from what I've seen, the "average" mediocrly married, if not outright miserably married and pending to become yet another of the 50% divorce rate statistics, were simple pragmatics not a dissuading favor in it, doesn't have any particularly good 'advice', intuition, or 'insight' about the matter either, particularly when anything relating to the term "feminism" in all of its ambiguous and inconsistent uses is discussed or brought up by men or women of either "side" or camp, with some degree of 'griping', resentment, or 'misunderstanding' of the other sex seeming to be quite ubiquitous, if not 'perennial', given that apparently the same types of gripes and complaints, and marital spats or quarrels have been documented since ancient history, per Plato and other thinkers.
On this, any universal worldview which is essentially nihilism about "the other sex" or relationships, boyfriends, girlfriends, fiancés, marriage in general, I rejected; I believe that some people are married or couples who are "happy" enough without it degenerating into something akin to "Jerry Springer" or "Maury" material, but realistically some people may simply not, at least where they are in life, be cut out for marriage, let alone children, whether one wishes to reference St. Paul or any other thinker or author on the topic, along with the "delusion" that any marriage is "perfect", which to me, at least if one has any level of common sense, or has read anything akin to mature marriage or relationship advice from any era under the sun, would know or pick up on without any silly and hyperbolic "red pill" paranoid required, unless they are incredibly naïve or ignorant, most likely willfully.
This is not about individual situations, this about society in general. The vast majority of young males are heterosexual and are thus looking for females. With a general 50/50 male/female ration that generally works out.
Now if you have large surplus of males, you inevitably have a number of young males looking for females but unable to find one... thus, incels.
That there any number of indivial situations is a given... I am not talking about that. I was talking about society as whole. So hard to understand?
Actually, you brought up mathematics, not I. And yes, education is increasingly girl-oriented to the detriment of boys. This is about the learning environment, not about the choice of topics. You might want to check out Jonathan Haidt, who has researched this extensively. Also you might want to read the paper that got James Damore fired from Google for addressing exactly the same issue (in regard to work environment at Google, not at schools, but it is the same issue).
No, I don't understand.
What are you saying, society in general has a "surplus" of males? Or that every young man (or woman) has no life goals or priorities beyond sex, masturbation, and pornography, and can't so much as find something akin to a productive hobby or life goal?
Nor do I understand any rational reason why a person would "identify" or fame themselves on the basis of how much "sex" they're getting (or not), unless they're a severely emotionally stunted individual with nothing akin to any meaningful goals, hobbies, values, life priorities, and so on.
If you want me to be "sympathetic" to some imagined and self-entitled "plight" which to me is more narcissism than anything else, I'm not particularly inclined to be, no. I've been with enough women that the adolescent thrill of 'hooking up' or 'getting laid' is gone, and a 'hedonistic' worldview in which all of life's meaning is reduced to "sex", or even "marriage", isn't particularly appealing, much as my observation has been that in happily married, as opposed to mediocrely-miserably married couples, marriage or relationships are just a part of an otherwise well-rounded and fulfilled live, not life's so end in and of itself.
If you're talking about K-12 education, my opinion is that given that the "bare minimum" level one will attain from this education is ultimately not very significant, given that it's oriented toward an average 100 IQ and 6th grade reading level, I find many of the claims histrionic, especially in regards to people pursuing self-learning higher level education or career pursuits and so on.
Overall, my opinion of it as a whole is not particularly good to begin with, nor are the experiences of young people reducible to what they learn (or don't learn) in K-12, given that a variety of other factors such as family, parents, culture, media, peers, the person themselves will ultimately play a huge role on their development.
I said "if". It depends on the society. For example, in a society that practises polygamy, by defintion there is a surplus of incels.
Same applies for a society with selective abortion of female babies (i.e. China with its 1 child policy).
These are simple demographic facts.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
I am not talking about how anyone "identifies" themselves, I am talking about simple biological facts.
I said "if". It depends on the society. For example, in a society that practises polygamy, by defintion there is a surplus of incels.
[/quote]
If your making these assumptions on the bases of hypothetical "warrior" societies, then it's probable that male death rate is much higher than average, which might help to "even things out" a bit.
I believe you've failed to use these "facts" in anyway which resembles a meaningful point you are trying to make.
Especially when the "incel" cult or subculture seems to be more delusional or "pride" focused (e.x. obsessing over stereotypically "hot chicks" with a media following), and not simply attempting to "get laid" or "get a girlfriend" with something akin to similar 'common interests' such as theirs.
Ultimately, I am not inclined to be very sympathetic; life is not all about "sex", and the type of men who would be able to date a "hot celebrity chick" like Taylor Swift or Angelina Jolie are a very small minority to begin with, most people, at least on some level manage to cope with this reality and realization, if they can't or won't because of their psychopathy and lack of anything resembling a margin of self-awareness, that, is ultimately on them.
Not to mention the realties that "marriage" even for people who invest their time in getting married or starting a family is far from a "walk in the park", with many couples ending up miserably married or quite less "happy" than the begin ideals, to the point that some even regret getting married after the fact, so obviously the psychological dysfunctions with "incels" are likely on a much more and deeper level, and not something that can simply or be easily resolved through their ridiculous and/or absurd "solutions", such as demanding that governments 'subsidize hookers" for them or whatnot.
---
And as far as "population rates", ignoring the crap above, you've yet to substantiate when and why they are relevant, or how much "population" any given nation or society needs to begin with.
So-called "whites" and English-speaking peoples are already a "minority" globally, compared to China and India's populations; nor does everything which currently "is" necessarily even need "replacement", and in some cases would likely be better off just to die and disappear on its own accord. So on this, again what is the point you're trying to make?
I was simply stating a demographic fact. But yes, you are correct; polygamy is suitable for a warrior society by producing lots of disposable and aggressive incels. Which is what I pointed out earlier... glad you finally got it.
Sex is part of life, and how different societies address it has a big role in shaping them.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
I said nothing about "whites" and "English speaking people", why do keep changing the topic? When you replace one population with a different one, you get a different society, that applies everywher. I.e. when China replaces Tibetan and Uigur populations with Han Chinese populations, the societies of Tibet and Xinyian change drastically. Again, I am simply stating a fact --- I don´t know what you do not understand or disagree with here.
You're not making any point.
1. You haven't lived in a "warrior society", and I suspect that much of this is over-romanticized in media and popular folk wisdom (there is a serious book on the subject of "violence" and actual violent combat by Rory Miller if you are interested).
My understanding is that any "elite warrior" no matter which "society" you're talking about was always a minority, and not the "average" man at all, much as how men (or women) who have served in live combat or special forces are not the "average" person, nor even the average officer or enlisted in US or other modern militaries; with "most" men and women having comparatively "average" jobs.
Not to mention, 1st world countries are not "polygamous" at least as far as law and social institutions and philosophies go; unless you count "hooking up" or "casual" sex as "polygamous" or "polyamorous"), which seems to be a civilizational philosophy and phenomena not necessarily exclusive to any specifically "religious" institution or phenomena.
2. You again seem to reduce the "Incel" phenomina solely to a "sexual" thing, as opposed to a psychological or character thing.
Or view the proposal that they do something remotely productive with their life other than obsess over women who think they're creepy, as totally out of the question.
Sex is part of life, and how different societies address it has a big role in shaping them.
[/quote]
The reality is that there are couples who married who "get tired" of having sex; much as there are notable men and women historically, who in practice may have never married, and actually found other endeavors, such as life, career or intellectual pursuits more satisfying (Newton and Adam Smith immediately come to mind).
And what's your point, and how would the number of birth rates have anything to do with it?
Whether or not the USA's population number stayed the same, or dropped by 1/2, it would be a different "society" regardless.
Likewise, any cohesive attempt at defining at what point any society or nation "begins" or "ends" to begin with has yet to be done (e.x. a nation called "China" exists today, but obviously it is not considered the same "China" as Ming Dynasty China).
If we imagined that prople are so full of hate that the hate in them makes them so ugly, so utterly unlovable, no matter how much makeup they put on, that nobody wants to have sex with them. Would that actaully make sense. Why propagate a gene set that is completely out of balance. By natural selection (ie no one would touch them even with yours) then there is a benefit to the overall genepool.
So when someone goes looking for a match, a partner, are they looking for something that looks good stood next to them or do they want someone that loves them. Whatever you look for you will find, but don't be fooled, like a peacock fluffs up its feathers, so do people fluff up their appearance. But whether you match or not is usually decided when you communicate, not by a picture of what they look like. Dont judge a book by its cover.
The Dissintergration of many a society happened as a result of the lewd decline into sexual depravity. The Romans had their orgies, the Ancient Greek man liked to have sex with young boys, they also like to kill babies if they didnt look normal and parade naked in the streets (check out the meaning of a gymnasium), and in our society today, we have Tinder, Grinder and Dogging. Oh and internet pornography, oh and 2 girls 1 cup. Oh and human slavery for the purposes of sex working. And organised paedophile rings. There may be more I cant think of.
The Dissintergration of many a society happened as a result of the lewd decline into sexual depravity. The Romans had their orgies, the Ancient Greek man liked to have sex with young boys, they also like to kill babies if they didnt look normal and parade naked in the streets (check out the meaning of a gymnasium), and in our society today, we have Tinder, Grinder and Dogging. Oh and internet pornography, oh and 2 girls 1 cup. Oh and human slavery for the purposes of sex working. And organised paedophile rings. There may be more I cant think of.
My focus, of late isn't specifically on "sex" so much as fatuous consumerism in general, it merely being a waste of life, but my earnest belief now is that in most time periods, people determined to do so found ways to 'waste' theirs and others lives', and find ways to be miserable even when they didn't or don't have to.
Nothing "fascist" about it, just reality and common sense, unless one things that being against pedophilia makes you a "fascist", and if so, they don't deserve to live to begin with, let alone have an opinion on that, or anything else.
I suppose it could be argued that the times were different and therefore the mortality of it wasnt questioned. That or those who approved of such things had the capacity, and the persuasion to encourage it. I would say all opinions should be considered otherwise there is no room for growth.
We are talking past each other. I am talking about society as a group, and you keep bringing up individual situations, of which there is of course and endless number. I don´t know what your mental block is, but you seem unable to look at the big picture.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
The birth rate is everything. A society with below replacement birth rates will disappear. And a society that replaces its population with an alien one will change into something different. I am just stating an obvious fact, not some hypothesis.
So hypothetically, if China lost 1 person per year, and assuming that the rate continued fixed at this with never fluctuating.
Then, China's population should be nonexisting in about... err... 2,000,000,000 years from now... lmao...
I have no idea what you are prattling about. Can you write in comprehensible English?
How long will it actually take, in theory, for the population of China, India, Europe, etc to disappear, assuming that it "stays" at whatever birth rate your referencing ad infinitum, and doesn't fluctuate at all, which I believe is very unlikely to happen in practice, as opposed to abstract theory.
Couple of generations, depending on how low the birthrate actually is, You really should familiarize yourself with some basic demographic facts.
Couple of generations, depending on how low the birthrate actually is, You really should familiarize yourself with some basic demographic facts.
[/quote]
How low "is" the birthrate actually, and likely to fluctuate.
You're talking about fantasy scenarios which simply aren't.
And? How does that fit into the entire spectrum of spending, in theory and In practice?
You can look up the birth rates, for example 1.3 in Italy and 1.5 in Japan. This and the accompanying problems are very real.
As I said, demography is destiny.
You can look up the birth rates, for example 1.3 in Italy and 1.5 in Japan. This and the accompanying problems are very real.
[/quote]
And... how long would that take for the population to "disappear", assuming that it stays fixed at this rate and never fluctuates?
Still dodging the point as ever, I see?
It is a math question. It does not very long, and obviously society is drastically impacted long before the whole population actually "disappears". You can play around with an online population calculator like this, if you want: http://ilkkah.com/population-calculator/
I really do not know what your mental block is here. It is not like I am stating anything controversial.
Either give me an estimate on how long, or please stop wasting time.
Plus this is assuming that it continues that way ad infinitum, when in reality that hasn't been the case historically.
Much as how "nationwide" or "global" population is just one of many ways of measuring things, and obviously doesn't take into account population within the context of smaller communities, and so on and so forth.
Not infinitum; very rapidly indeed, seeing that human life span is about 80 years. And yes, this has been happening before, and is happening now. Use the calculator site that I referenced to see how the math works out.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
What the heck are you talking about? For better or worse, we live in nation states, and the national birthrate determines what happens to them. And yes, of course, there are differences between communities; i.e. the orthodox Jews in Israel with their massive birth rates produce the children that the secular Jews do not produce, In the same way that muslim immigrants produce the children in Europe that the native Europeans do not produce, which will turn Europe into an islamic continent within the century.
Of course things can change, but if you bet on that you would have to explain why you expect change.
What the heck are you talking about? For better or worse, we live in nation states, and the national birthrate determines what happens to them. And yes, of course, there are differences between communities; i.e. the orthodox Jews in Israel with their massive birth rates produce the children that the secular Jews do not produce, In the same way that muslim immigrants produce the children in Europe that the native Europeans do not produce,
Prove this please. What you're saying is fallacious, and it's just one of potentially many ways of measuring or framing demographics and trends.
If your equating birth rates with turning into an "Islamic" or any other continent, this is fallacious, for example, India used to be a "British" territory, despite people of Indian descent being the "majority" demographic.
Much as how high-level scientists or engineers, or people with such as level of intelligence (e.x. Bill Gates) are a statistical "minority" as well, but this hasn't stopped you from using or buying their computers.
So you haven't substantiated your conclusion, much as the reality is that in times past where infant mortality rate was higher than today, people tended to have more children, partly for this or other pragmatic reasons.
It is simple and obvious demographics (below replacement birth rates by one group vs astronomic birth rates by another), and is not exactly a secret. I.e. the official statistics bureau of the German goverment admits this.
By the way, have you ever wondered, why "Mohammed" is today the most frequent name for new born boys in both the UK, France, and Sweden? How do you think that happened?
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
I do not know what your argument is here, and neither do you apparently. India was British colony, yes, but what does that have to do with birth rates? A more relevant example would be how e.g. the population of Kosovo turned from Greek Orthodox to muslim. Hint: Not by mass conversion.
What is the question you're seeking an answer to? How would you put it, exactly?
It seems perhaps you're trying to answer a question like this one: "Which is the best sort of sexual practice for all people in all times and places: strict monogamy, strict polygamy, or unregulated promiscuity?"
Is there some reason to expect that there is a "one-size fits all" answer to your question?
Your discussion seems perhaps to overlook the fact that many people in formal monogamous relationships (within and without the institution of marriage) are more or less promiscuous beyond the formal boundaries of their monogamous relationship. Perhaps we should treat this as a sort of hybrid case. Likewise, there is another sort of hybrid case in which people in formal polygamous relationships are more or less promiscuous beyond the formal boundaries of their polygamous relationships.
In some cases one member of a formal monogamous relationship has one or more additional stable and committed long-term sexual relationships. In at least some such cases, we might count this as a sort of hybrid of monogamy and polygamy. In at least some of those cases, one or more members of this web of relationships is also promiscuous beyond the boundaries of the web.
We might further distinguish all those hybrid cases I've mentioned into those in which the "external" relationships occur with the knowledge and consent of all parties to the formal (monogamous, polygamous, or hybrid monogamous-polygamous) relationship; and those in which the "external" promiscuity occurs without the knowledge and consent of all parties to the formal (monogamous, polygamous, or hybrid monogamous-polygamous) relationship.
I see no reason to suppose that any one of these arrangements is best for all people at all times in all circumstances. It's quite common, and potentially healthy and satisfying, for people to go through periods of promiscuity, monogamy, and abstinence. Each of these lifestyle choices has potential benefits that may appeal to different people at different points in the course of life.
If you're not sure which might be best for you, why not give them each a try until you're satisfied?
From a moral point of view, matters of health, compassion, and consent are of central importance. Take precautions to avoid transmission of STDs. Take precautions not to abuse yourself or others. Avoid deceiving or misleading others: What are the norms and expectations involved in a monogamous or polygamous relationship? If you enter a such a relationship and break or change the rules without the knowledge and consent of all relevant parties, it's likely something's gone wrong.
The commitment you make by entering some forms of relationship, exemplified by marriage, should also count for something. That's one reason it may be advisable to get some experience in sexual relationships, including long-term monogamous relationships, before you make the most serious and durable commitments.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
Promiscuous sexual exploration is something like a rite of passage, or at any rate a valuable life experience, for many people in a wide range of cultural contexts. That doesn't mean that it's necessary or preferable for all people in all times and places.
I'm not sure how you could do better than to use your own judgment about what's right for you in such matters. As we've each suggested at the outset, there is no reason to suppose there is a single "correct" custom, decision, or practice along these lines.
Of course, using good judgment requires you to understand your circumstances. If it's common in your neck of the woods for fathers, uncles, or cousins to stuff you in an oven if they suspect you of promiscuity, that might give you an incentive to refrain from such activity. Of course I find such practices, and the attitudes that accompany such practices, absolutely abominable.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
There's no reason to assume that people who "hook up" are just "using each other". Sometimes people hook up and treat each other like tools for sexual gratification and ego-inflation. Other times people hook up and treat each other with genuine affection and care. It seems to me the attitude, emotion, and intention you bring to the exchange is what counts in this regard.
I agree with your suggestion: It seems sexist and confused to suppose that women are not or should not be promiscuous like men, or to suppose that women do not "use" men like men "use" women.
It is simple and obvious demographics (below replacement birth rates by one group vs astronomic birth rates by another), and is not exactly a secret. I.e. the official statistics bureau of the German goverment admits this.
By the way, have you ever wondered, why "Mohammed" is today the most frequent name for new born boys in both the UK, France, and Sweden? How do you think that happened?
[/quote]
And this matters... why exactly?
"Most people" who go to college only have a bare minimum bachelor's degree education tailored primarily for the IQ 100 demographic to begin with; why would a demographic in regards to "most people" have any bearing on the intellectual achievements of, say a high-level scientist or inventor with an IQ of 150?
"Most people" are not computer programmers or scientists; Bill Gates is an entrepreneur who made a fortune through innovation in the computer industry; in some cases, being a "minority" demographic in one (non-mutually exclusive) area or another can potentially be an advantage or have" more influence" than being in the "majority".
Your point fails, and defining the "nation" on the basis of ethnic traits, based solely on one of potentially infinite ways of "framing" or measuring the population demographics on the bases of to begin with is fallacious.
Obviously, for example, "population or ethnicity" did not affect whether or not India was a "British colony:, much as how "whites" or "European people" are a "minority worldwide" anyway, compared to India and China, but this isn't automatically "bad", nor does it in anyway detract from whatever political or economic prowess Americans or Europeans are presumed to have.