"Men Are Jerks" And Other Musings On Modern Day Dating Nonsense

I find it irritating when all these idiotic females complain that some guy she had sex with did not call her later.  Like she'll have a one-night-stand, and then she will get all upset and angry that he didn't call her.  "Oh how dare he, after they have a one-night-stand, how dare he not call.  Men are such jerks, guys don't call, guys don't treat women with respect."

Wait, hang on a minute.  What were you doing sleeping with a guy so soon in the first place?  You are claiming that he did not treat you with respect.  But you did not treat yourself with respect in the first place.  So basically you are saying that you acted like a slut, and yet you are getting mad that the guy is treating ou like a slut.

If you were truly so worried about establishing some sort of communication pathway, then why didn't you do exactly that?  Why did you not make sure you were in a clearly demarcated relationship in the first place before jumping in the sack?  Because here's the thing.  You are <not> in any sort of commitment.  You are not in a real relationship.  It is a totally insincere arrangement.

I have resorted to calling them "females" rather than addressing them as women or girls.

These females get mad because some random guy didn't call her after a one-night-stand.  Umm, why would he call? It’s not as if you two have a relationship.  You are not in any kind of relationship.  You are not friends, you have no emotional connection, you are not truly a couple.

There is no modicum of an emotional attachment whatsoever.  You are not in any semblance of a couple.  You are not friends.  You have no significant annotated, notated status as a couple.

[[[Oh he’s such a jerk.]]]]
Well, if he is such a jerk, then why did you sleep with him?
I didn’t know he was jerk.
What do you mean you didn’t know he was a jerk?
I just met the guy.
What??  If you just met the guy, then why did you sleep with him?
Because I didn't know he was a jerk, I just met the guy!

What??  Whattya mean you just met the guy?  If you just met they guy, then why did you sleep with him?
Because I didn’t know he was jerk.

((((switch off))))0)))
Well, if he is such a jerk, then why did you sleep with him?
[Then she’ll start whining, ohhh I didn’t know he was a jerk.]]
What do you mean you didn’t know he was a jerk?
[[[Ohhh i didn’t know him that long.]]]
Well, if you didn't know him that long, then why did you sleep with him?
[[[Because he seemed so nice]]
But you said you didn't know him that long.  So you didn't have time to figure out whether he was nice or a jerk.

[[[[ohh how was I supposed to know he would turn out to be a jerk??  Ohh I had no way of knowing he was a jerk.]
What do you mean you had no way of knowing?  Yes, you did have a way of knowing -- you could have waited to get to know him a little better.  You could have waited longer than 72 hours to sleep with him, preferably a hell of a lot longer than that.

Because you didn't know him, you didn’t take the time to get to know him before sleeping with him,

You see how it keeps circling back to the original question.  Why did you sleep with him so soon?

Ohh I didn’t know he was a jerk, he seemed like such a nice guy, he didn’t seem like a jerk.

And you are complaining about this AFTER you already slept with him?  Well, that's kinda why you don't sleep with someone on the first date.  Or the second, or the third, or the fourth, and not for a while.  Because at that point, that individual is still a stranger.  You have not given yourself enough time to gauge this person's personality.  You don't know anything about them, which means that any sort of bad stuff could possibly be lurking in there.  This person could be a jerk, this person could be a serial killer, this person could be a con artist who is only trying to steal all your money.

So again, why did you sleep with him at all?

Sociobiology And The Unfortunate Mass Female Response, Or Women On Security And Safety

This is in response to the sad case for sociobiology that has flooded the airwaves.

Security and stability, consistency in romantic relationships is an evolutionary requirement that women desire.  And supposedly, men desire the opposite.  Men supposedly do not care for stability and structure in personal romantic relationships.  The evolution has decreed that men are supersluts by design.  That is the theory.

People are still insisting that males' role is somehow automatically better than females' role.  All these women are saying they are "infuriated" or "offended" or whatever at the hypothesis.

This is a reactionary, knee-jerk response to the quandary.  So in essence, these uninformed non-feminists are still** being incredibly sexist.  Because they are assuming that the male's role is better than a female's role.  And so, bitter and resentful, they have decided to use drag themselves down into the gutter and insist that this is equality.  All they are doing essentially is exacting revenge.  That's it.

I think the real problem with this theory is that [[___women are being objectified, same as they have been all throughout pop culture history.  With this woefully ignorant, uninformed theory, women are seen as mere toys for males to play with.  Women are portrayed as sex objects and nothing else.  This pseudo-evolutionary theory is incredibly lacking, this is incomplete in its information.

They should instead be lifting all people up to a higher plane of understanding.  They should instead have a more intelligent and comprehensive interpretation of how human beings regard each other.

Males and females, heed my words.  If you are going to have sex with random people, then fine, whatever.  But do not say that evolution made you do it.  If you are going to do that, that is your own personal choice.  Don't point to evolution as the driving force.  Saying that your sexual habits are due to evolution is basically saying that you have no choice in the matter.  This is essentially saying that you have no free will.

That is in direct conflict and violation of evolution, and here is why.  Lower less-evolved animals have no conscious free will.  They are guided by only instinct.  Homo sapiens, however, are supposed to be several steps higher in existence.  We are supposed to be a radical departure and improvement over lower members of Kingdom Animalia.  We have evolved the conscious ability to make choices and control our behavior.

I was taught that "evolution" is supposed to mean an improvement over past species, improvement over past decisions and actions, improvement over transgressions that caused harm to people.  We humans have conscious choice and free will, do we not?  We have the capacity for logical, rational thought.  We are are able to utilize level-headed, reasonable decision-making and critical thinking.

Unfortunately, the herd female response has only made the situation worse.  These twin aggravations of sociobiology and herd-females have both convened to create a disgusting, sad, sagging, pathetic social dynamic.  They exacerbate each other further and further down the sewer.

Too many women are screeching and screaming that they are offended by the notion that women desire safety and security?  Ah, excuse me?  Why would anyone be offended by this?

Somewhere in the abstract labyrinthine pedagogues of their minds, do they think safety and security are bad things?  Do they interpret it as somehow being "demeaning" to posit the notion that women value safety and security?

What about safety and security from crime?  Is that also a "bad" thing?  __ poverty? ""  """"  As I am a woman, I can tell you in no uncertain terms that, yes absolutely OF COURSE safety and security are important to me.  That is why I went to college; that is why I majored in something useful; that is why I got a job.

As a woman, I can tell you in no uncertain terms that I most definitely, absolutely want safety and security for my life.  Which is why I went to college.  Got a job.  Majored in something useful that will bring me job security, monetary security, personal security.

Conservatives:  I have a question for you.  Why, when someone says that women desire safety and security in life, do you automatically assume this means she wants a man to protect and provide for her?  Everywhere I see and read, this is astonishing in its monotony.  This is the only interpretation I see any time and any place that so-called evolutionary differences between men and women is mentioned.

Why do you not come to the realization that if a women desires security, she might seek it out for herself?  If a woman desires stability, security, and safety in her life, she has a capability and the means to obtain it without needing a man to do it for her.  She can work hard, get an education, get a well-paying professional, decent, respectable job.

Liberals:  Same question.  You heard me.  Why, when someone says that women desire safety and security in life, do you liberals automatically assume this means she wants a man to protect and provide for her?

I do not understand why people are lauding the supposed male drive to be whorish, and lambasting the female drive to be monogamous.  Why is it a good thing that males are sluts?

Can someone explain this to me?  Seriously, why in the world are so many females offended by this postulate?

We are not baboons or wildebeests or mammoths or whatever roaming the jungles.  We are human beings, a higher animal.  We are evolved, meaning we are better than that.

As human beings, we must build society to be clean and well-organized and safe.  We know that this is all required in order to have a productive, intelligent society that progresses forward.  As a matter of fact, we not only "know" in our minds through logic and reasoning that this is a good idea, but we in fact crave and desire it.  We want a society that is stable and structured and orderly.  We want as little crime as possible.  We want excellent education.  We want decent, reliable, available job opportunities with reasonable salaries.

In our Homo sapiens arsenal of sentience, we possess self-awareness, we have full consciousness.  We perceive that the universe exists, and we perceive ourselves in the world and in the universe.  We have the mental capability to ponder our existence.  We can consider the meaning of the universe, and we have the intelligence capability to seek and carve out an existence that fits in well in society.

Be proud of your own evolutionary requirement.  You have morphed to desire and seek this.  This is a good thing.  This is something to which people *should* aspire.  This keeps society safe, keeps society whole, keeps society healthy.  Women should be praised and exalted, and held aloft on the prodigal altar.  I do not understand why women are throwing screeching temper tantrums over the notion that females want security and stability.

Sociobiology, Ltd.

The natural world is incredibly feminist.  I am not quite sure not quite sure why so many people are so stubbornly obtuse to this concept.  The vast, vast majority of people I encounter-- including fellow feminists, fellow scientists -- not a single one of them has made this groundbreaking realization alongside myself to this self-evident fact of the planet.  They are absolutely brick-wall-obstinate in noticing this fact. 

--upon reading that___, I stood a little taller, I sat up a little straighter.  You've heard the Maya Angelo poem "Phenomenal Woman"?  Recall the feeling you got upon reading that poem?  That is the warm, proud, happy feeling that engulfed me when I learned about how things are organized out in the natural world.
*engulfed you;;; that you basked in

*** remember, att this point I wass still** thinking that we humans have evolved to the point that we can consciously decide if we still want to let past evolutionary history determine our future destiny.

Many people have an "urge" to beat the crap out of someone if they are mad.  That [[[urge,desire]] can be classified.
<then they say, oh nooo, we are human beings, we have judgment, intelligence,,, we can think before we act, we can judge if an action is morally right or wrong.>>>

I'm sorry, what's that??  Could you repeat that a little more loudly please, so that the whole class can hear??
<<<____>>>
That is my point exactl;y.
If we can use forethought, intelligence, and good judgment for one aspect in our lives, then we can use those same capacities for thinking in other aspects of our lives.

[[[[Natural?  Your eyeglasses are not natural.  Your air-conditioning is not natural.  Your indoor plumbing is not natural.

If you are so damn woriied about being natruaal, then the first things you should do are get rid of your car___
toss your factory-produced shoes intto the river,___
--
why do we have dominion over lions, tigers, and bears?  with our puny little Chiclet teeth and our soft puncturable skin, there is no logic to the hierarchy of life that currently exists.  We do not have anywhere near the physical capacity that many, many, many lower animals possess.
Natural predators out in the wild have claws, teeth,____

And yet they do not dominate over us.  Why not??

<<<ohhh well we have intelligence>>>
we cann plannn and build cities,,,>>
I'm sorry, what's that??  Could you repeat that a little louder please, so that the whole class can hear??
<<<____>>>
That is my point exactly.
If we can utilize forethought,___

Let us look at the very close analogy of IQ scores, including ability for scientific and mathematical intelligence.  Analytical skills and logic abilities have absolutely nothing to do with physical prowess.  And yet intelligence in that capacity is considered more advantageous than physical ability.  Intelligence is considered superior to physical ability.  Why do we think so?

Could it be, perhaps, because it is the truth?

[[[If this is even true, then why is it true?__]]]
We have progressed beyond mere physical evolution-- into a vast, complex humanity.  We have social structure, we have understanding of psychology.  We do not have to be slaves to basal physical "evolution" any more.
--Where is the consistency?  Where is the logic?

Evolution is supposed to mean improvement and progress, towards a better and brighter tomorrow.  If that means we have to consider more than biological instincts, then so be it.  Monogamy is far more important than any biological urge for "evolution."  transcended their basal biological dictates to reach a higher plane of existence.

Trite Insipid- The Myth of Society Being Biological

This is something I thought of way back in high school when I first heard this trite banality that is termed "sociobiology."

You have all probably heard the social-psychological theory that millions of years of evolution is why men like technology and science and, I apologize ahead of time, slutty sex, and it is why women like pink and can’t fix a clogged plumbing pipe, or something like that.

Okay, I am exaggerating, but why is it that so many humans insist that a male’s role is somehow better than a female’s role?  Much of the opinions of what is better or worse are just a matter of interpretation.  Being promiscuous as males do, as too many humans think, means “sexual freedom.”

Ah, excuse me?  Not knowing how many offspring you have; not knowing who the mothers are; spreading the chance that one of your unknown offspring might meet another one of your unknown offspring someday in the future, and, not knowing who their ancestors are, become married and have children that incidentally are inbred!  That’s not freedom, that is irresponsibility.  And it is being a “slut.”  Like it or not, that's the truth.

Females on the other hand, according to the theory, prefer to stay with one mate and have all their children with this one person.  As evolutionary biologists say, look at how much energy, time, and effort a female must to devote to raising her offspring.

I truly think that should entitle her to be immensely respected and admired, not put down because she doesn’t have “sexual freedom.”  What would be best is if both males and females tried to be monogamous, and that females wouldn’t try to even the bar by being as promiscuous as men (wrongly) think they have the right to be.

---proof that promsicuit is NOTT higher evolution due to evoll::  see how the evolution thumpers are saying math ans science are due to evlo.'   well, math adn sci are higher level criticla thinking.****
-->> so if we can use critical thinking and intelligence for one bit of evidence of higher evolution, then why can we not use that selfsame argument and apply it to another branch of sociobiology?

the-- wehn I rebuttaled that,, "then why do we have dominion over lions tigers and bears?"
[[put here the 'I'm sorry could you repeat that?' comeback to the idiotic musings that people have a capacity for thinking rational thought, reasoning, logic, but yet magically somehow do not have the capacity to see that they should not risk STD or unwanted pregnancy.

*** one about hiw, specif I think, 'we have evoled th the poit that we can decide for ourselves whether we want to keep letting past evolution decide our future fate (destuny).'

The reason animals let their biological urges determine their outward behavior is that they have no choice in the matter.  Animals are not sentient.  They do not posses self-awareness, they do not have conscious awareness of their actions.  Animals do not have "thoughts" nor "feelings" in the same way that people have thoughts or feelings.  (Put some stuff in here about psychology,, like rational decision-making.  Cognitive ability.))  they do not have the decision-making capabilities that we Homo sapiens possess.

In History 101, the professor mentioned that the earliest humans were wanderers, nomads.  They would use up a small area's physical resources, food, grains, plant matter, animal flora and fauna.  They had to use up an area's resources and, once they used up said resources, they the no choice and were forced to move on from the area

This is called being entirely dependent on "natural" rules that forced them to conform to a non-conscious schedule.  Being a slave to nature's dictates and whims, and not being able to [[stake one's claim on a piece of land and calling it one's own.]]]

But then after that, miracle of miracles.  Someone realized that farming and planting were possible.  From then on, early humans tilled the land and made it work for humans.  They realized they could use the land as a renewable resource.  They could use the same land over and over again____,,, instead of picking one area bone dry and then helplessly moving along when they could no longer get any handouts from the land.

They realized they no longer had to let nature rule their lives.  Before, they were not able to work and tweak and adjust nature to their own needs of survival.  But once they gained this knowledge, early humans realized that they could_____.  This is called intelligence.  This is called using foresight, thinking and planning, conscious decision-making processes.

This is called using good judgment and not using the excuse that just because nature does something, this is somehow a good excuse for humans not bothering to use good judgment.  This is called not allowing nature take control of your conscious life.  This is called using a higher level of consciousness and intelligence than simply what biology dictates.

So if humans can figure this out regarding land, then similarly humans should also be able to figure this out regarding their reproductive systems.

--put the greylag gooses exampel, that of rolling the egg back into the nest.  even if the egg falls out of the way [[to the wayside]]] so that essentialy there is no more egg to roll.  this is because they are lower anmals.  they do not have the brain capacity for rational, conscious control of actions.  a goose that is engaged in egg-rolling behavior is doing this on autopilot instinct.  a goose is not able to stop and think, "wait a minute, what am I doing here?  Why am I wasting my time rolling an egg that is not there?"  the goose is not able to dicide to stop or start its behavior.  evidenlty, it is also not able to deicde to go look for the egg that roled awya.  it is not smart enought.

But we are a higher order of being.  We are Homo sapiens.  With humans, there is no such thing as biological traits affecting behavior.  Behavior is a matter of conscious thought being put into voluntary action.

We have the capacity for conscious decision-making processes.  Ergo, we have the ability to consciously look at a path choice and decide, of our own volition, is this the right thing to do?  Is this the right moral choice to make?