More Trying To Impress The Alternative Crowd

Meh.  And of course you have the requisite American middle class white kids that pretend to understand foreign language art house pr--.

They usually come out of the woodwork when a pr-- graphically intense indie arthouse artsy fartsy movie comes out.  They then accuse people who don't like this movie of "being afraid to take risks, not in touch with their dark side, not being attune to their psychopathic murderous tendencies, you are not a strong capable indie in charge of your own life," or some shit like that.

Just be honest.  You don't have any clue what the eff is going on.  And to be even more honest, you probably did become incredibly uncomfortable.

But you <do> want indie credibility.  You desperately want to fit in with the goth or punk alternative cool crowd.  Since mainstream youth culture has established that anything mainstream is inherently uncool, you want to be considered cool by the "truly" cool kids.  You just want to sound cultured and world-class.  You are trying too hard, desperately trying to seek approval from the ironical jaded alternative non-mainstream crowd.

You know what?  I think it is time we stumbled upon a new truth.  So, some background first.  We all know that just because something is established and mainstream and popular and normal, doesn't automatically make it good, blah blah blah.

However, I think that now we have been witness to enough pop culture to make the following declaration.  Now we can safely assert that just because something is counter-culture – *also* does not automatically mean it is good, either.  Truth scabs, son.

Fake profundity and badassery

more boring middle class white kids crp where they try to act all deep and profound__
That is why they all reflexively, automatically tear down traditional movies.  They all have delusions of being renowned, acclaimed alterna-current movie directors._

existentialism
they love to debate the merits and ponder the deeper meanings of goddamn hollywood movies, for goodness' sake.
this is why they love spewing philosobablbe about the matrix, the coen brothers, and AI.  (okay, so admittedly I really liked the matrix and AI also.  But at least I did chores at home.))

they would rather talk about random crap completely irrelevant to their actual lives, than ever lift a finger and actually get involved.  volunteer work, local community stuff.
--^^
it's like how I rememb a lot of kids back in high school would [[dribble spout,__ ]]] endlessly [[ceaselessly]]] about saving the rainforest or saving the whales or some sht.  yet these exact same kids couldn't get along with their moms bc they were too effin lazy to help wash the dishes.

They would talk [[[expontentiall, endlessly abt censorship, about aids hysteria etc., about how nailpolish is a symbolismsymbolic of oppression or freedom]]] but they were too lazy to study for their classes in school.

[[[___]]]] but they did not call and talk to their grandmothers once in a while.
[[[[____]]]]] but they were too good to mow the lawn or take out the treash when needed at home.
[[[___]]]] but not that many of them held after-school jobs.

People who say, oh you are so closed-minded why don't you want to watch movies that have violence and creepy disgusting subject matter?  Heh, you are a laughable dumbass.

I am taking you to task on this.  I am demanding that you put your body where your mouth is.

you want to discuss violence..... ?  let’s discuss violence...
I am guessing that you do not watch the news very often.  do you keep up with current events around the world at all?  slavery still exists.  did you know that slavery still exists?  buying and selling human beings, human souls,
do you ever watch the news?  no of course you don't, because you are a dumbass.

***I have noticed that when people talk about freedom of speech in movies and TV and video games and stuff… --- it is almost always because they are too damn scared to actually practice freedom of speech in real life.***
It’s usually because there is something preventing them from truly practicing freedom of speech.  They are not allowed to seek the truth, they are not allowed to get at the heart of the matter.  They are intimidated, bullied, scared into staying away from the actual truth.  For example, the sopranos.  Why are you foisting this trash on the American public, glorifying violence and making money from drugs and p---?  You say I am the weak one, that I am the one who is afraid of creativity, of "freedom of expression," of "expressing yourself," blah blah blah.

Oh, yeah?  Well how about you report on the REAL mafia?  And not worry about this fake controlled environment sound stage filming studio.  What’s stopping you?

*Or, they are afraid and are too engulfed in liberal dogma and manifesto to admit that if they were really to come right out and say openly and honestly what is on their mind, they know that no one would listen.  So they have to couch it and disguise it in this mask that veils what they are really trying to say.  They know that they are not truly allowed to speak their mind.  So they have to dress it up and slap on the pancake layer makeup until it is really not recognizable anymore as the original message they had wanted to convey.

You want to discuss violence..... ?  Let’s discuss violence...
This stuff that happens in the movies?  It exists in real life.  human mutilated, maimed.  little girls -- children -- being subject to torture and mutilation.

I am guessing that you are a middle class white kid, are you not?  Hmmm...  I notice that there are no dark-skinned people from a poverty background saying the stuff you are saying.  People who actually have to live this every single damn day of their lives.  You just say all of it because you are ignorant of the fact that you do not know what true pain is.  Hell, I’ll be honest, I don’t know either.  But at least I'm not sitting here fake-badassing my way through a goddamn computer screen.

So go back to your fake "[[[[[ the phrase the person used to make themselves feel better-____]]]]  controlled movie sets, soundstages, ____
And convince yourself that you have stretched your worldview, broadened your horizons, and are an open thinker who is not afraid to take risks.

--
I think this is simply another manifestation of that.   ((of rather talking a big talk
these stupid mcw kids, er young people, whatevs, yearn a desire to feel renegade and trailblazing and breaking ground b
having street cred, being hood, gangsta, being "real" by secretly harboring the desire to produce/write/direct/etc. a controversial independent movie.

Men's Mags Featuring Sore, Pathetic Losers

I am reading a lot of the “reader comments” on mens magazines message boards on the internets, like askmen and 3h!+ like that.  A lot of guys, it seems, seem to have been heartbroken by what past females in their lives did to them.  Due to this, they have degenerated to seething with vitriol and fury and just plain intolerance and hatred for all females.

Now they exact revenge on the remainder of the female species, by cheating and screwing and turning them into women scorned.  Okay, fair enough.

But how long are you going to keep blaming those few females in your past, for all the crap that you are putting yourself through now?  For the shti that you are doing to your own damn life.  Grow the eff up.  Take some goddamn responsibility for your life.  Have some accountability.

Are you really that shitty of a judge of character?

Did you not realize that if she was that kind of ""ohmigosh, so much fun!!!""  flashing people at random times, that she probably was not possessing of any stronger moral fiber when in private?  She was getting drunk and high with complete strangers.  First of all, getting coked or stoned at all, or getting piss-drunk is very bad judgment.  But then going so far as to doing this dangerous risky behavior around strangers??

You thought it was cute.  You thought it was sexy.  You thought it was hot.  You have only yourself to blame, for not taking a step back, looking over this with a clear head and with all the blood being present in your brain, thinking critically about this.  Thinking with your big head, the one that believe it or not, commands the most of your nourishment and blood supply at most times, and not just when you want a quick fix.  You know the one that supposedly houses the cerebral cortex, the lobes for critical thinking, and the cerebellum for finer more complex layers of cognition.

Guess what.  If she acted that way around you when she first met you, a veritable stranger, then she is that way all the time.  You chose to accept this.  You ignored the signs that were evidence of how she would continue to act in the future.  Yes, including how she would act if she were supposedly in a monogamous, exclusive relationship with you.

The indicative signs were there.  And you chose to ignore them.  You dug yourself into your own damn hole.  ___And now you are mad at her because ____ [[[[[use the same line as the buyer's remorse of woman scorned]]]]]


*******
A word to the self-proclaimed wise.  Males,,,, this time.

Put the line abt how, it seems that a lot of guys sleep with some stranger chick at a frat house party.  Then schocker of schockers, it turns out she is underage.

And he is brought up on charges of statutory rpp.

I have no sympathy for you whatsoever.  Have you not read my previous written speeches??  I [[[preach, lecture women on not sleeping with strangers.  For the very obvious, self-evident common-sense reason that they are strangers.]]]]
You should have heeded this advice also.  This is kind of one of the dizzying myriad of reasons that you do not sleep with strangers.

Just in case the logic is not crystal clear, the reason you do not have sexx with strangers is precisely because they are strangers.

Then of course the guy, in all his infinite wisdom, intelligence, judgment, and acumen, [[d[d[d[____]]] is all offended at the notion that he should have verified this stranger’s age, date of birth, blood type, legal status, ovulation cycle, etc.  How dare I suggest that he do a positive identification on the person before engaging in coitus??  Oh, the humanity!!!!  Oh is there no common decency any more!!  Oh is there no courtesy towards fellow man any more!!!

Yes, there is, dumbass.  You violated it.

or shees flighty and flaky, a nightmare girlfriend. first she moves in iwht you , then she moves out,. thten its on agian, then it's off agian. making your head spin, mostl from headache.

she sleeps with all your friends.
then you complain about how she has no loyalty whatsoever.  how women do not hodl up to their word.  that women are not as good as their word. that their word does not mean squat. that women don't have nearly the loyalty and good-for-their-word as men do.

look, I agree. which is why if I were a guy or a gay girl, I would not have goen out with her in the first place. what the hell did you expect? that she was going to be wild and crazy when she met you but then magically would follow the straight and narrow once she would realize how good you were to her and that she loves you and then she would magically stop sleeping around?

look, you're the one who was only being nice to her because you hoped you could get into her pants. and now you got your wish.

Aftermath Of Cohabitation Arrangements

Following hot on the heels of the "living together" essay.

Regarding abortions.   I'm reading a lot of comments and opinions on the internet where these females are stating things such as the following.  "Oh you don't know, oh you can't, oh you don't knoww the amount of pain and suffering [she] has been through; you don't know the amount of pain [she] went through in making the decision to get an abortion.  they say stuff like, "you don't know what it's like to be in a horrible, horrible heart-rending breakup and [she] knows she can't possibly cope with this alone, [she] knows she can't raise the child on her own, she doesn't want to go through pregnancy on her own, so therefore [she] has an abortion."

So basically this just even further reiterates and further highlights all the things that I've been saying are wrong with modern dating in the first place.  They had an insincere relationship, they had no actual commitment, no actual emotional commitment, no practical commitment of any kind.  They're just shacking up, and that's it.

Then when the- then when it came down to an actual important huge major issue like this, such as, you know, pregnancy, then all of a sudden they bail out. the- the- then all of a sudden they, what's the word, they, they pick up the tail or whatever it is, they pick up the pace, they haul, haul butt, haul A-Z-Z, out of there.  That's what is happening.

-for second essay _ another line in there continue, where she said oh you don't know how hard it is, oh gosh you don't know what it's like to be in that sort of heartbreaking situation, oh don't judge them, don't judge them unless you're in their shoes, don't judge them until you're in the exact same situation.

These are just some more points to add regarding the topic of abortions in modern-day dating.  Basically, the circumstances that surround most of them seek quite bleak and dead. It's like they just abandon any semblance of hope. It's just more and more social afflictions and diseases that simply highlight all the problems with modern dating in the first place.

Abortion And Dating: More Of The Same Old, Same Old

That title is probably shocking.  That is what I intended because I was shocked and disgusted when I found out that modern-day dating problems stoop this low.  This is a____ gutter-sewer that is plummeted six feet under.  The depths to which this seedy underbelly reaches know no bounds.  These depths are a cavernous gaping maw, a cold, dank, dark place that is filled with mildew and disease and fungus.

What I am seeing is that a very large number of so-called relationships go on [[half-heartedly for a few years.]]]  The participants approach this non-relationship non-romance with a sagging, flaccid, floppy, dead-on-arrival type of regard to life.  It is a pathetic travesty and _____ their own health and well-being.

So they implement abortion as a solution to a crappy dating relationship that has broken up.  Two people are in a pseudo-commitment with each other.  They are shacking up, dating, sleeping together for a long time, what have you.  The point is that they did not make any sort of genuine commitment.  There is no actual commitment to each other.

So in [[the vein, in the essence, in the pattern of this ___, they eventually break up.  This is as predicted by relationship models [[generated in simulation labs that have software models of relationships,,, with the usual patterns observed repeatedly.

This is science, folks.  This has been culled together from years of ___ again, this all highlights what I have been saying for years about relationship crap.  Too much sxx, not enough commitment.

Look, I'm not saying abortion should be illegal.  Abortion still needs to be legal, safe, and accessible for victims of rp, abuse, child abuse, incest.  There is a lot of nasty vile stuff in this universe.

But it is flabbergasting that abortion also is seen as a solution by a disturbingly large number of people -- in workaday <dating> relationships.  They consensually, casually chose to have sxx.  And they consensually, casually chose to have an abortion.  This is beyond disgusting. 

Granted, at that point it is not a human life yet.  Speaking in terms medically and biochemically, it is only a potential human life.  But this whole situation is still sickening.  It is sickening that any of this has to happen at all.  This is all the same self-destructive crap of horrible life management.  We already know there are alcoholics, drug addicts, crack addicts, STD addicts, etc., and this is essentially the same thing manifested slightly differently in the minor trivial details.

Wouldn't it be a far better course of action to avoid all that mess in the first place?

Even if you did get an abortion and so therefore it's like the whole sh'tty relationship is wiped clean out of your reproductive tract.  Even if you could, why would you want to go through all that filth at all??

It's like drug rehab.  Sure, eventually your system will be clean of all toxicology reports.  Or going to jail for armed robbery.  Sure, eventually you would serve your sentence and you could rejoin civilized life outside the penitentiary system.  Sure, in a way it is like the slate has been wiped clean and you get a re-do.  Sure it will eventually be in the past.  But why would you want to go through that hellish experience at all??  Actually, no it is really not like the slate has been wiped clean, not at all.  You still have to live with your past.  You still have to live with what you did and what you put yourself through.  You still have to wrangle with all of that in your conscience.

This is the biggest issue that I cannot comprehend.  Why would you consciously choose to do any of this to yourself?  Why would you want to hang your life in effigy?  You simply disregarded the fact that you have a conscience and a responsibility to yourself.  Your conscience should be guiding you so that you do not destroy yourself -- *for* yourself.  This is for your own damn good that you should refrain from screwing up your life.

No one else will benefit nearly as much as you would if you make smart, healthy decisions for yourself.  You would benefit the most.  And that is the utmost point.  It is okay to put yourself first and to consciously prevent yourself from screwing up your life.

Are you simply incapable of making rational, healthy decisions?  Are you simply incapable of doing the right thing for yourself that will improve your life and lead you to a healthier, better station in life than you are now?  Prevention is the best cure.  It is certainly true in this case.

Evolution, Promiscuity, And Abortion

So the media keep saying that males are promiscuous due to evolution.  That is the allegation.

The allegation is that males are spreading their genes around as widely as possible.  The theory is as follows.  According to de-evolved behavior of lower animals, simply churning out sheer numbers of offspring with no regard to the offspring's' survival or well-being is considered evolutionary fitness.  Also, male gametes are plentiful and cheap to produce, house, store, nourish, and distribute.  Procreation does not require much investment from the male donor.  It does not cost the male organism much to reproduce in terms of health, food, water, shelter. 

Both those theories together appear superficially to lead to the theory of male whorishness being due to evolution.

First of all, this is not evolution.  I have spent a great amount of time explaining the reasoning from a moralistic, philosophical standpoint.  Now I am also seeing quite a bit of compelling physical evidence that this is not true.

All over the internet in addition to women's rags and lad rags all say pretty much the same stories over and over again.  Males are promiscuous two-bit whores.  That is well-established in the general consensus of popular psyche.  The evolutionists have taken this lowest-common-denominator brand of behavior -- and turned it into their cause célèbre`.  They are trying their gosh-damnedest, straining and [[twisting and warping their logic processes to try to excuse this behavior.

Now here is even more evidence as to why promiscuity among male humans cannot be due to evolution.  Let us refer again to those first-hand accounts that lad rags and female rags grace us with. 

Pro-evolution is supposedly synonymous with pro-reproduction.  However, promiscuous males and females are getting abortions left and right.  Last time I checked, abortion cancels out reproduction.

An even more shocking revelation is becoming apparent in all these stories.  It appears that males are more in favor of abortion than females are.  A lot of these promiscuous males learn that a one-night stand person or a girlfriend person is pregnant.  Then upon learning of this fact, the male demands she get an abortion.  This [[experience, instance]]] is repeated with very minor variations throughout the internet and dating magazines.

They are consciously choosing to terminate the fetuses.  Now, how in the hell is promiscuity supposed to be pro-evolution, i.e., pro-reproduction -- if those promiscuous males are doing away with the products and goals of said promiscuity -- the offspring?

In the course of typing this, I have stumbled upon a strange [[[theory]] as to why this might be the case.  Remember that male gametes are cheap and require no great investment of time, energy, calories, metabolism, or biochemical input from the male to produce.  Nor to reproduce.

It appears that human male slutss approach this selfsame theory from the opposite angle.  Since they do not have to expend any energy nor time to house a pregnancy, to carry a pregnancy to term, to see the growth and [[production,, creation]] of an offspring through to the end --

This also means they do not have to expend much [[[moral __hemming and hawing,, to arrive at the decision to terminate a pregnancy.  No moral quandary to have to struggle through.  It would not require much work to create it, and it did not require much work to destroy it.

It appears they have no moral qualms towards the gruesome act of terminating a pregnancy.

Creepy, Disgusting, Useless "Nerds" PII

I was in the books and magazines section at Walmart, and there was a selection of comic books/graphic novels/whatever the hell you want to call them.  Yeah, I hang out at Walmart sometimes.  So sue me already.

Out of morbid curiosity I decided to look through some comic books.  There was one I found where some characters were discussing the following (good God, I wish I were making this up.)  They were casually discussing whether or not one of them should marry a twelve-year-old girl.  And this one was worried that a twelve-year-old might not be a virgin.  Then one remarked that there are ten-year-olds that are already, um, used-up prostitutes, to put it politely.

What in the f---...?? 

This is the world that creepy, disgusting nerds inhabit that they think is so superior to mainstream entertainment??!

I somehow doubt this was some very rare comic book that has been shunned by most of comic book fandom for being creepy and disgusting.  I have a sneaking suspicion that more comic books than I care to count come from writers that see women this way.  by no means was this some obscure, hidden away, inaccessible hovering-on-the fringes-of-comic-book-society pariah.  this was at freakin Walmart.  This was mainstream comic book society.

I hope I'm not confusing you with my use of the words "mainstream" and "counterculture" to describe several different strata of entertainment.  There are the following:  normal human beings, then football player aholes and hollywood with its sex objects, then creepy disgusting nerd culture, then fringe super-disgusting nerd culture if it exists.

Let me remind you that the comic book inhabits a completely made-up world.  Someone in this modern day and age had to sit down at a desk and think this up.  Evidently, comic book authors have such vile, nauseating hatred of women that even in this fake world, they succumb to their sickest, darkest criminal tendencies.  These are tendencies that they should have just kept secret from the public and instead should have revealed only to their therapists.

Comic books are not real life.  Comic books are not news reports, not journalism.  The purpose of comic books is not finding out the disgusting truth about backwoods caveman cultures in real life where they murder young girls who are rape victims and call it "honor killing."  Or where they think toilet paper is a myth.  A comic book author, or video game creator, does not have to follow any plotline that mirrors real-life news discoveries.  They do not have to adopt facets of a real-life remote village in Afghanistan where they force little girls into being r-ped by much older males.

Everything, and I mean everything, about comic books and video games came out of a figment of someone's imagination.  That means a comic book author has the freedom to create whatever kind of universe they want.  They can make people's personalities be whatever they want.  They can create a culture that has whatever values the author thinks are important to humanity.

And yet they still, without fail, fully consciously, fully voluntarily, fully of their own free will, choose to crap out a world that treats women like sh!t.

Oh, wait a minute, I see now.  It turns out I have already talked about this also, albeit in a different permutation.  The perverted disgusting comic-book/video-game types think that because it is outside the mainstream, and they must be somewhat intelligent; after all, they like playing with video games.  Therefore by dint of being out in the counterculture, it must by necessity be better.  They think that simply because they have a different opinion on entertainment than what the mainstream's opinion is, they must be better by default.  Because it is outside the so-called "conservative" mainstream, they think that it must be liberal and therefore by default it must be better.  No questioning or dissenting opinions allowed.

They genuinely think that social and moral conservatism is somehow worse than the horrifying videogames where they
violently dismember women and then individually rape each of the separate severed limbs.

There is a bullspit oft-repeated argument that, "oohh they're just releasing their tension and anger and stress with the world."

Guffaw.  Tension and angers and stress?  Really?  You do realize we are talking about are middle-class white kids that live in the western first-world.  What in the hell do they have to be tense and angry and stressed about?  They have clean safe drinking water, running water at that; it is not water that needs to be pumped; vaccinations; free primary and secondary education; a fairly good economy; job opportunities, most deadly diseases have been eradicated.  Releasing pent-up tension and anger?  That's a good one.

Creepy, Disgusting, Useless "Nerds"

Actually, I am not sure what to call them.  They do not deserve the honor and privilege of being ordained true "nerds."  We nerds are good people.  We actively contribute to society, with all our geekiness and our love of science and mathematics.  I do not wish to tarnish the good name of "nerd" carried on the proud shoulders of our forebears -- Isaac Newton, Maud Menten, Antoine Lavoisier, Niels Bohr, a whole bunch of others I am forgetting right now.  Oh -- Pythagoras.

I personally am a huge sci-fi fan.  Yes, I admit it.  I totally loved The X-Files, Jurassic Park, and Outbreak.  I am a huge Michael Crichton fan.  There was once this movie called Mimic that I don't think anyone remembers other than myself.  It had to do with aliens or bugs or alien-bugs or something.  I tend more towards the biological disaster type of sci-fi, such as the aforementioned, rather than the futuristic technology brand of sci-fi, like Star Wars or Star Trek.  I did used to watch Captain Jean-Luc Picard and crew, but I'm not such a rabid fan of Star Trek that I would consider myself a trekkie.  (Hehe, I'm suddenly reminded of a scene from Sabrina The Teenage Witch.  Sabrina told her aunt, "I'm really worried about Valerie [her best friend].  She's fallen in with a bad crowd."  And her aunt, equally concerned, asked, "Trekkies?")

I suppose that by some stretch of the imagination, video games and comic books might be considered sci-fi.  Only by a very long, loose stretch of the imagination, like when you pull melted cheese out of a tortilla and it stretches out two feet and then snaps.

Anyway.  These sick f'ks I would like to address here are not nerds.  I had been hoping that only the mainstream privileged athlete types were frat boys, aholes that saw women as sex objects.  The drunken football player big-man-on-campus types have drunken party-girl frat-whores that hang on as their harem.  They go to college just to be typical spoiled middle-class white kids that think they are spoiled rich kids, still having their parents support them and do absolutely everything for them -- pay their bills, pay their tuition, do their laundry and cleaning, do their cooking and grocery shopping.

But nope.  Now the seedy underbelly of the supposed haven for the socially destitute has revealed its true nature.

People seem to mistakenly think the nerdy guys are sweet, awkward, nice guys who are more interested in tech gadgets and toys than they are in anything remotely related to romance/sex/dating stuff.  They are shy, maybe a little socially awkward, but generally still good guys that respected women.  And plus they are supposedly intelligent, or that is somewhat how they present themselves in the public arena.  They are smart and therefore they would have better judgment, better morals, they would know better how to conduct themselves.  This is the general impression people seem to have.  People are gravely mistaken on this very large account.

Sigh.  Let me be completely honest.  This phenomenon of geek males being creepy, perverted aholes is not truly, genuinely, honestly all that surprising.  I have already talked about other cultures in other countries being *worse* even though they are "multicultural" and might very well approve of technology.

You see political commentary op-ed pieces all the time wherein the writer is astounded and flabbergasted that primitive third-world cultures embrace cell phones and other technology, and yet still manage to be violent, amoral, misogynistic neanderthal caveman subhuman creatures.  Op-ed writers find it perplexing that those cultures apparently have the intelligence to handle operating relatively high-tech infrastructure like an internet connection.  But they still somehow lacked the evolved moral behavior that would allow them to treat women like fellow equal human beings.

Erm, are you freakin kidding me?  Being able to upload a streaming video to the internet does not require that much intelligence.  It really does not.

But more to the point, what does one have to do with the other?  The ability to use a computer to surf the internet, even if it does require a smidge of intelligence, does not have any bearing on whether a person regards women as fully-formed human beings who should be treated with dignity and respect.

I have also talked about the fact that self-proclaimed liberal society, that of the counterculture outside the "conservative" mainstream, is extremely disrespectful towards women.  They see women as little more than sex objects.  This is the biggest problem I have with liberals.  They insist that females that degrade and demean themselves are "empowered,"  and that women that want to be wives and mothers and devote time to taking care of their families are the ones being degraded.  Wtf?

Hollywood is obviously extremist liberal and by some accounts it is outside the mainstream of normal human beings.  It is no secret that in typical Hollywood pop culture, women are objectified to a sickening degree.  A side note that needs to be made clear, and this is a concept that goes over too many people's heads:  these females are objectifying themselves.  They convinced themselves that this trash is empowering and liberating.  Men did not make them do this; don't go blaming men.  The females chose to do this of their own volition -- and therefore it is their own fault if people call them on their BS.

What does any of that have to do with disgusting, useless "nerds?"  I'm building up to that.

The case studies that glomp onto video games and comic books, especially the misanthropic species in circulation nowadays, evidently pride themselves for not following the rest of the "sheeple" (that's a favorite word of theirs) down the lemming cliff or something.  They consider themselves rebellious, original, free-thinking, and unconventional indeed.

The common consensus among most normal people is that the type of individuals drawn to comic books and video games are undoubtedly nerds.  They were bullied and harassed by the popular athlete hot guys.  They were oppressed by mainstream culture.  In somewhat related news, women have also been historically oppressed by the alpha male hot guy aholes.  As far as entertainment goes, hollywood is of the same stripe as the alpha male aholes, in all its sexually-objectifying-women glory.  (Okay, I'm with you so far.)

Here is where people's wishful thinking leads them astray.  Therefore the unpopular nerds might be able to relate to and associate with women.  They should by logic be more empathetic towards women, since they possess less of the low-evolution traits that commonly characterize the hierarchy of high school society.  You know, the hot dumb guys supposedly have more physically prowess, both in looks and in muscular strength, and tend to lack higher intelligence characteristic of more evolved creatures.

Nope.  It turns out that, all that the creepy nerds wanted was a subdivision of culture in which *they* could be the big men on campus and casually regard women as sex objects.  The creepy nerds were denied any girlfriends because hot chicks were always snapped up by the hot guys.  So they decided to create a world in which females are the creepy nerds' sex slaves.

Recall those video games where they violently dismember females, and then rape each of the individual severed limbs or something like that.

These losers immerse themselves in a fake world.
T heir every waking moment, every conscious thought is consumed [[devoured]] by this fake eyesore.  They lambast the Christian religious right for believing, [[for waging their well-being, for placing their hopes upon ] the existence of a world that only exists in fairy tales.  The useless nerds' words, not mine.  They criticize Christians for __ consciousness, __ occupied.

This is how the useless disgusting nerds' logic goes.  First, some background.
1. Christians believe every word in the Bible (this is the useless-nerd perception).
2. The Bible mentions nothing about aliens, unknown planets, alien universes, modern-day technology, intergalactic space travel, evolution.
3. Actually, more specifically, perhaps the Bible forwardly states that those things do not exist and that anyone who believes in that stuff worships the devil.
4. Space travel, planets other than earth, and technology all do exist today.  Useless nerds claim to embrace this stuff while Christians allegedly do not, making the nerds have ample reason to fly in the face of old religion.
5. Therefore, by dint of being more realistic and more accepting of modern day, the useless nerds can feel they are smarter, more realistic, more able to navigate the modern world.
6. Therefore, the useless nerds are superior to Christians in every way.  The useless nerds reject the Christian Bible's take on technology, and similarly the useless nerds can reject other major angles of the Bible such as social structure.
7. Namely, the useless nerds claim to regard women in a more respectable, respectful, dignified, polite, courteous, civilized manner than Bible religious types approach regard.
8. etc.

That sick, vile comic book.  I don't know if it was a comic book; I do not know exactly what it was.  Maybe it was a subscription publication for useless-crap-enthusiasts.
Star Trek naked alien babes
violent video games
comic books
Dungeons and Dragons, thought I cannot figure out if this is a comic book or video game or what.
This is their free-thinking, liberal, cast-of-the-shackles-of-an-oppressive-regime world wherein they claim to respect women so much more than religious fanatics do.

Let us think about this for a second.  [[[contemplate, analyze]]]  This is entirely made-up.  __So they had time to edit it, and revise it, and it is freely sprung from your conscious choice and your own free will.  The, er, "creators" willingly hand-picked every aspect of it.  They supposedly did not allow society's enslaving and oppressive rules to dictate anything for them.  And yet they STIll manage to be misogynistic as all get-out.  They still sit there fantasizing about this.

And the godforsaken satan-of-entertainment-spawned sh*tfest genre that is a meld of sci-fi and horror.  Oh, dear lord, no.  Whyyy?  Who the hell actually bankrolled these multiple piles of crap?  There are weird giant alien bugs that rwepp women.  I don't rent any of these movies.  I just happen to see the movie cover and then have to hold back my regurgitation.  I know they consider themselves sci-fi because I read the description on the back; I just couldn't look away, I had to pick up the movie cover packaging out of morbid curiosity, it was much like watching a train wreck, it's so gruesome but so captivating in a horrifying manner that you can't look away.

Okay, enough excuses.  Deep cleansing breath.  Breathe in through the nose, exhale through the mouth.  The above-metnioned sh*tfests are an insult to genuine sci-fi, especially the few ranks of the genre that are genuinely intelligent.  Intelligent sci-fi is out there if you care to look for it.

Repairing Broken Vase, Putting Pieces Back Together

Perhaps I should offer a rejoinder to my previous essay.

Real evolution is something that we should be trying to achieve.  It is truly something that we should focus our energies on.

and yeah, I am aware that a lot of people think that no violence=lots of random se- with random strangers.  happenstance meetings, chance occurrences.  liberals are quite predictable.  they seem to think that__

Evo psychologists have it all wrong.  They have both factors completely wrong- what motivates females is wrong.  And what motivates males is wrong.  [[summarize reiterate why they think,, ''the female is hardwired to be faithful to one male but males are hardwired to sleep around."" **also explain why this last part is not true.]]]]]

Both sides have strong incentives to demand fidelity from the other.

This is a brilliant hypothesis and I wish I thought of it myself.  But alas, I cannot take credit for it.  I found this idea on the internet.  Both males and females have an evolutionary drive to want the other to stick around.

Female wants the male to stick around and be monogamous to her.  So that she can have all his resources.  Food and shelter.  Male wants female to be monogamous to her so that he is assured that she is bearing his and only his offspring and not that of another male's.

Stunningly, it actually fits perfectly in perfect harmony and balance, the physical and sexual evolutionary drives for greatest reproductive success.  Perfectly integrates this with higher-animals' advanced psychosocial development.

Hehe, it is kind of funny in that both parties monitor and police the other's reproductive behavior.  This is a far cry from the evo psychll's insistence that each sex is hardwired to follow its own behavioral governance.

Physical health -and- providing n protecting the family are no longer the same thing.
aha, yes-- write that in great detail,, exactly why and how physical looks n health n strength are no longer indicators of a successful happy life for a male.  Nor, certainly, are they indicators of a happy, successful life for a female.

---here, talk about human civilization and how as the human race progressed, had to take a further and further [[recline,, backseat]]] to genuinely evolved psychosocial characteristics.  new personality traits began to emerge as humans lived through the eons.  new personality traits


[[[[[[    include a picture each of two people for comparison.  list their lifestyles and accomplishments. ]]]]

Here are two people featured for comparison.  I have purposely chosen two people who are both African-American, because that always manages to cut through the BS and shoot right to the core of whatever the hell everyone is arguing about.

*This gentleman is married, has a full-time job as an auto repair shop manager, and he and his wife have two young children, which they both actively participate in raising.  His wife is a nurse.  They were married since at least nine months before their first child was born.

*This other gentleman demonstrates all of the traits that evolutionary psychologists insist are characteristic of successful "evolution."  Hopping from one female to the next, impregnating many random females, not bothering to stick around to raise those offspring.  All the women he has fathered children with-- are as staunchly anti-marriage, anti-commitment as he is.  They say they "Don't want to be tied down to a man."  And surely, why should they be?  They get everything they need from the state.  Housing, medicaid health insurance, food stamps.  The government gives them whatever they need, by taxing those forms of sustenance away from other unrelated citizens.  They do not need to work for nor earn any of it.  Most of these females have other children, which are fathered by men other than this particular one, producing a strange web of descendants and blood relatives spread amongst the neighborhood.

Just some FYI.  This second gentleman began reproducing before the age of seventeen.  The female consorts began reproducing before the age of seventeen.  And the vast majority of their offspring in turn began reproducing before the age of seventeen.  None of these reproducers are married to their gene-exchangers, nor were they ever married.  Of these descendants and indeed of the consorts, the majority of them did not finish high school.  They are barely functionally literate at a sixth-grade reading level.  (That is the level of reading difficulty at which most newspapers publish articles.)

According to the proponents and promoters of "social evolution," the second man is more fit evolution-wise that the first man.

However, sticking to one spouse with one stable family is not, according to you, evolution.  Yes, we can totally see that things worked out quite well for the second example.  After all, they have practiced your brand of evolution.  They have chosen quantity over quality.  Therefore I concede your point of course.

Discarding The Ooga-Boogas

I have been reading over my previous essay and I have decided to keep the "Keeping up with ooga-boogas" as it is.  Yes, it is weird and strange and doesn't make that much sense.  And also it contradicts itself with every other sentence.  First I claim that a female is constantly scanning the horizon for a better-looking, more physically fit male.  Yet I also claim that females do not have any reason to keep the male around at all.

How do these both possibly make sense?

perh- readily enthusasitically admit that my previous essay didnt make much sense.  I now know it is becaseu I was grappling with two contradictoy ideas in my head (use first sentence up above!))

It is because I was making an argument against a common notion in evolutionary psychology.  The common notion is that females want safety and security, they desire solid, constant, established shelter, and therefore females want a male to stay around permanently for this reason.

I was demonstrating that this is no reason at all for a female to need a male to stay monogamous to her.  Or indeed to desire a monogamous relationship at all.  All a female needs is a source of food and shelter and resources, full stop.  In this day and age especially, there are plenty of avenues for any female to acquire food, shelter, and resources without ever needing a monogamous male.

Keeping Up With The Ooga-Boogas

I think I need to revise an earlier essay that I wrote regarding evolution-determined gender roles.

I think I was incorrect in my assessment.  Female members of a species probably do not have as much of a motivation for sheer uninhibited promiscuity.  This unfortunately does not necessarily make them better.  The shallow, morality-free angle that they do harbor and exploit is golddiggery.

Unfortunately in the labyrinthine maze that is romantic crap, men are assholes and women are dumbasses.  In that Laura Schlessinger book, she claims a woman "is just doing what her natural biological urges are telling her to do."

Huh?  Who gives a crap what those "biological urges" are?  Biological urges very often, very pointedly, point someone in the wrong direction.  So what if that's what biology dictates?  Do you only possess biological urges, with no accompanying sense of morality, no judgment, no sense of right and wrong?  And that is only the beginning.  What about doing what is right and healthy for you as a human being?

What about growing as a person who exists in this world, contributing something positive to society, actually participating in it?

If that is the brand of "evolution" these scientists are using, then you would have to use an analogous version of "evolution" for females.  Females out in the natural world are very materialistic and shallow.  They have about as much motivation for sticking with one male, as any male has for sticking with one female.  It might not be sheer promiscuity being the driving factor, but it is something equally as shallow and abhorrent.

I will preface the rest of the essay by stating that I am not endorsing a single iota of this behavior.

The purpose of this essay is that I am trying to hammer home a point.  We are Homo sapiens, which by definition means "wise man."  We cannot and we should not allow ourselves to succumb to the same absence of virtue that defines lower animals.

Lower animals are characterized by  the following:  lack of judgment, no stable two-parent homes, being slaves to biological urges, extreme and often deadly violence, the list of things that humans call "soulless" goes on and on.  Even though the Latin "anima" means "soul," they are still lower animals.  They do not possess the arsenal of empathy, compassion, the concept of future-planning, a grasp of consequences -- all of which are supposed to set us humans apart from them.

but by coddling and encouraging the worst [[_excesses]] of human behavior.  _what the hell kind of society would this create if people just decided on doing whatever their fancies impulsively dictated?

Whatever their whims, whatever their fickle, irresponsible hearts' delight__   What would happen if people simply decided not to use conscious, voluntary reasoning and good judgment anymore?  What would happen to society if people did not step bakc for a minute and think, "wait a minute, maybe I should consider the consequences before jumping in the saxk with a complete stranger?"
utilize critical thinking and say, "maybe I should forego a few minutes of pleasure and instead think for the long term?"
I'll tell you what kind of society.  The kind that this one is circling the drain towards.

Provisions, rations, vittles, resources, whatever you want to call it.  Females out in the wild in modern-day primates as well as females of our own primate ancestors are mostly opportunistic gold digger whores.  They appear to always be constantly keeping one eye out the door for a bigger, better male that might come along.  They always keep one foot ready out the door for a male with a bigger habitat, better access to food, and an assumed better ability to fight off natural predators.

Females of early hominid species, and indeed, of all dioecious species, also have as much of an incentive to always keep one foot out the door.  If not to sleep around specifically, then certainly to latch on to the next eligible male. 

*protection from predators -- mastodons, sabretooth tigers, dinosaurs, etc.

Not all males are equally capable of wrestling down a mammoth with one's bare hands.  A female is more likely to choose a male that is physically capable of protecting her and himself from natural predators.  neither are all males equally capable of utilizing weapons for killing enemies.

with the advent of tools such as the bow and arrow, this reason pretty much became obsolete.  a weapon such as this can be fired from a distant range, without needing to___ Females can be as skilled at using a weapon or tool as males can.  But if a female is not capable of firing a weapon for protection herself, this still hardly levels the playing field for males.

Those types of unevolved females, the ones from whence too may evolutionists derived the word "evolution," are mostly shallow golddigging whores.

Are you familiar with the concept of co-evolution?

Two mutually beneficial, but distinct species will evolve in cooperation with each other.  so that if one develops a trait that benefits it, the other species will adjust itself and develop a trait that allows it to "keep up" with the first species.

It turns out the same thing is true with human behavioral evolution.

The female does not in fact necessarily require a male that would provide "security, safety, and stick around for the long-term in order to help with the raising of the children."

As a matter of fact, it turns out that all the female truly requires in order to provide security and safety for the children is a whole lot of money.  Regardless of where that money comes from.  She does not necessarily need the male to stick around for the long haul to help raise the children or anything like that.

This is true in the wild.  It turns out that females are constantly on the lookout for a better, more fit, prime optimal specimen of male.  if she finds one, then screw the current one.  the current one is the one she chose because it was the best option in the immediate vicinity.  but if she happens upon an even better male specimen, then pshaw.  screw the first one.  As all scientists know, the female's contribution to the existence, upbringing, and well-being of offspring is enormous.  why should she waste her time raising your sorry, punk-ass second-choice genes?  she would spend her time rather growing a fetus that houses the more fit genes.

Anyway, the female does not necessarily need the male to stick around for the long haul.  she just needs a source of money.

This is true with the poverty class.  We see this all around us.  The female reproduces as often as possible.  As soon as she finds an ideal male, she will ditch reproducing with the current male, and she will reproduce with the most recent and better option.

We also see this with the wealthy upper crust.  Do women stay married to rich men for all eternity?  No.  They marry them, then divorce them to get half their junk.

So if you want to continue talking about this and to pretend that this downward spiral back down into primordial ooze is headed in the right direction, then I can continue on all day.  I will put you where you belong.  But if you would much rather admit that this is all detrimental to our species, then we can work.  If you would just realize that this is all very harmful, then we can cooperate and be a little smarter.  And we can be more evolved.

The Evolution That Isn't

There has been a lot of humdrum as of late that exclaims to the world that man-whores are doing the right thing evolutionary-wise because they are spreading their seed.  What I find interesting in a bad way is that the endorsers, supporters, and people dancing in the street celebrating this sociological "breakthrough" of evolution are seeking every excuse possible NOT to be evolved.

Let us look up "evolution" in the dictionary.  The definition in Oxford Standard Modern English Abridged Version, c/1999, is the following:

However, according to you, "evolution" conveys a mindset that has not matured past a certain line of demarcation in the long-past formational history of our species.

If we are going to tag the word "evolution" with the evolutionary psychologists' take on the word, then we must apply this same broad brush all across the board.  Consistency is always important.  Evolutionary anthropologists are postulating that evolution leads all males, every last one, to chase as much tail as possible.

Wrong.  Evolution states that only the Alpha Male is able to chase as much tail and spread around his seed as much as possible.

Less brain power, primitive, no social skills.  No conscience, no morals, no culture, no history.  No sense of moral conviction, no sense of social responsibility.  These unfortunate tendencies, wherever they might spring up, are bad no matter which they come from, males or females.

That is misuse of the term "evolution."  Promiscuity, sleeping around, refusing to make a commitment -- yes, all of that did happen with early hominids.  That is precisely why it is not evolution.  It is primitivity, de-evolution.  It is not evolution, it is not improvement, it is not moving the human race forward.

First, a little reminder, and this is one that modern males would do especially well to remember, only the alpha male got to sleep around.  The less physically fit, slower, duller males that were worse at taking down a mastodon would not be given the time of day by any females.  The eager-to-reproduce females would be much better off ___

I was going to write that early females of hominid species have as much of an incentive to sleep around and not be particularly faithful, but this has never been proven to be the case. There were several females in the very late 1990s that for some reason or other strained and squirmed in vain to try to prove this point.  In my observation they failed miserably.

I can immediately think of reasons this would not be.

For one thing, to be completely informative, just because a female sleeps around is no indicator that she would even get pregnant.  Many females, especially younger females, are unable to tell when they themselves are most fertile.  They have no idea when during their own ovulatory cycle they are most likely to become pregnant.  Sleeping with several males that are in varying degrees of physical desirability is no guarantee that the female will only become pregnant by the one that is most physically fit.

Women often can't even tell when they themselves are most fertile.  Some have learned to identify this phase, but the majority have not. So just because she has sex with a bunch of dudes doesn’t mean she would get pregnant.  And it definitely doesn't guarantee that she would magically only get pregnant by the alpha-est of the group.  That debunks the assertion that a female has any evolutionary incentive to sleep around.  I’ve already talked about why the article and so many others like it tried claiming this. It was a pathetic flaccid attempt at claiming that everything men do is automatically better than anything women do.

Which all leads me into my next argument against this.

Second.  Medical science has proven that outward signs such as waist to hip ratio, breast size -- offer little in the way of determining whether a woman is fertile.  Ovulation in humans cannot be determined by outward visual cues.  Or by auditory cues, or any sort of nonverbal communication.  Simple observation of signs and symptoms offers very little in determining when or even whether a female is fertile.  Males and even females cannot determine when any given female is most likely to get pregnant.  A female human can know when she _herself_ is most fertile, but without verbally communicating this to other members of the species, no one else can tell.

Ergo, just because a male sleeps around with a bunch of different females, this is no guarantee that any of them at all will become pregnant.  As I already stated, the vast majority of humans cannot identity if any one given female is fertile or not, given any external cues.  This includes any males in the vicinity.

Third.  Now, females might not engage in ongoing promiscuity, as in simultaneously banging several dudes at once.  But they are definitely shallow individuals that are instinctively motivated by the same factors that drove cavewoman behavior.  Cavewomen were constantly on the lookout for a fitter, harder-bodied, better-looking male.

Cavewomen were constantly on the lookout for more superior male.  She would definitely trade in the current one for a superior, better, more advanced model upon encountering one.  If a more physically fit, better-looking, taller male comes along than the one the female just slept with, why should she waste her time growing the first one's kid?  Her energy and time would be put to much better use growing the progeny of fitter, hotter genes.  And it is possible that even after that, she might still happen upon a more fit, sexy male.  So the cycle continues.

Let me repeat, this is not true genuine evolution.  This is not improvement, this is not moving forward.  This is nothing more than degeneracy.

Many females in the modern age are promiscuous, but this has little to do with evolutionary drives.  It is simply a lack of morals.  Also, as I have discussed before, this is a matter of females trying to keep up (keep down?) with males' black hole bottomless pit brand of sexual mores.

Reasons that a female would supposedly have an evolutionary angle to stick around the male.
*as well as the notion that a woman would want to stick around so that she may use the male's resources for raising the offspring.  Kids are expensive, after all.

For the case of this modern day and age, this is also debunked.  There are numerous social and economic balustrades in place that ensure that a female and all of their offspring are provided for.  There is no reason for the female to need the male to stick around for the purpose of gathering food or resources.  All she needs is a source of food and resources, period.  There is no compelling reason that it must come from the male.

Welfare and government housing programs ensure that a female and her offspring are provide with a continuous source of food and shelter.  Completely regardless of whether the offsprings' biological fathers are still around or not.

In public welfare housing projects, women often are pregnant from several different men.  I have even witnessed several poverty-class women stating that they refuse to ever marry, because they see marriage as somehow being stifling.  in these situations, the women have no problem obtaining living quarters, food, shelter, and provisions on which to raise their offspring.

At the other end of the economic class spectrum, we see rich Manhattan divorcees.  A woman would be a serial marryer.  She marries men for their money and then divorces them a short while later, taking their house and half their money.  she does this several times in sequence to ensure that she has sufficient resources to support whatever lifestyle standard she chooses.

There are in fact entire countries that operate on the notion that there is no significant reason for the biological mother to want the father to stick around and raise the kids.  The Nordic countries -- Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark all have in effect a veritable welfare state.  Salaries and wages are redistributed in the form of benefits, including medical insurance and college education, regardless of parental marital status or even geographic proximity.  This effectively turned every individual living in these countries into a welfare queen.

Again, I am absolutely not endorsing any of this.  This sort of arrangement breaks up families, encourages children being born out of wedlock, creates dependence on the government to bail them out, and discourages employment.  I am simply making a point that "evolutionary" history does not dictate that the female stay with the male.

Protection from predators -- mastodons, saber-toothed tigers, dinosaurs, etc.  Actually, if we are going to continue this line of evolutionary psychology thought, then protection, safety, and security are very good reasons for the female to want the male to stick around permanently.  Indeed it is a good reason for the male himself to want to stick around permanently.

This is a pretty good reason for the female to want the male to stick around.   She would want the male to exert his energy and effort towards protecting the female and the offspring.  Interestingly, it is also just as much reason for the male himself to want to stick around.  After all, what good is siring any offspring if they are all killed and eaten by predators?  If a male impregnates a female, a one-and-done encounter and then immediately sprints off to impregnate another female, there is no guarantee that the previous female even got pregnant.  Indeed there is no guarantee that the fetus, if it was truly conceived and successfully implanted, will survive to term and be born as a healthy, viable youngling.  And after it is born, it needs to be protected from external threats.  The male would need to stay right there to ensure that his progeny survived and remained healthy.

Evolutionary Psychology- This Is Not Progress

I am proposing that as people who study science and biology, we must have a much more comprehensive interpretation of evolution.  We can be informed of the evidence supporting evolutionary behavior, but we can acknowledge the dangers in relying too much on evolution to explain humans’ behavior.

I am not offended by animal species examples, even though I consider myself a feminist, because, come on.  Be realistic.  They are lower animals.  They don’t know any better.  They, according to our (humans’) classifications and criteria, are not very achieved on the evolutionary scale.  And we humans do not want to look at animals as our role models, do we?  Who reasonably wants to resemble an item that might show up as roadkill?

Also, you must remember that animalia do not have time to acquire their behavioral knowledge through learning.  They must rely on instinct because they do not live long.  Humans, on the other hand, live much longer and have the capacity to learn – formally, informally, and from their mistakes.

There is one species of lion in which a male might choose a female to mate with.  But if the female already has young with a different male, this current male kills those previous young because his instinct is that she should spend her time raising his young, not that other lion’s.  If humans did this, it would be disgusting and horrific.

The female black widow spider, as she and her mate are mating, eats her mate and of course in the process kills him.  That is her primary source of food.  It is disgusting, but it works for them because they are spiders, not humans.  Don’t even get me started on plants.  If humans did half the things plants did, they would be arrested, sterilized, and institutionalized.

People that put forth this theory of evolution-as-explanation-of-behavior usually do not directly mention race and ethnicity, although many times throughout human history certain ethnicities claimed their evolutionary superiority over other ethnicities, using alleged scientific evidence.  I hope we all know that this superiority is simply not true and not existing.  And that using any excuse to claim oneself better than others of a different race is called racism.

Science can prove that all races are of the exact same species.  Okay, this might sound silly, but from a scientific viewpoint, if a male and a female, each from a different species, has one offspring, that offspring will be unable to reproduce because its two parents are of two different species.  An example is the mule.  One parent is a donkey and the other is a horse.  The mule is unable to reproduce.  Humans, on the other hand, are perfectly capable of reproducing.  If a person has one black parent and one white parent, that person has no biological obstacles from having children, racially-wise, anyway.

Consider the second law of thermodynamics.  This states entropy -- the universe automatically moves toward chaos, without needing any extra help or input of energy.  This sounds to me as though thermodynamics seriously puts a hamper on evolution.  Evolution means that the universe (or species, anyway) is moving towards organization and improvement.  You have all probably heard all the allegations that religion contradicts itself, etc.  If you were to study science carefully, you would probably notice that science contradicts itself as well.

Now, I am not anti-intellectual.  I remember the Kansas State Board ruling against teaching evolution in public schools, and I am glad that ruling has become overturned.  Evolution is essential to learn because it is a communal gathering of all the knowledge that humans have gained thus far.  And much of it is true – living creatures trying to survive through survival of the fittest and such.  Evolution works in mysterious ways.  Witness an article in Newsweek magazine recently that reported that the reason humans do not have as many children in their lifetime as other species is precisely because they are more evolved.

But when we use evolution as an excuse for poor human judgment or behavior, that is crossing the line.  Actually, I wonder if people do not realize that because of evolution, we humans need to be smarter than our Cro-Magnon ancestors.  Evolution, over time, gives species and beings the capacity to problem-solve, to invent and innovate, as well as the ability to reason:  Should I take this risk?  What are the consequences, or rather, the price I would have to pay?

And we as humans have gone the extra crucial step.  We have consciences.  Or at least, we should.  Perhaps that is the final frontier -- the ability to distinguish right from wrong.  The ability to care about others' feelings, to sympathize with a fellow human being.  Animals do many things that a great many humans would consider wrong behavior.  But we as civilized, moral beings, should rightfully recognize the degenerate nature of lower animals.  And we should be capable of refusing to succumb to those lower, non-conscious patterns of psychology and behavior.

Marriage and a low number of sexual partners.  Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is a sign of civility.  It is structure, order ____.  It maintains a healthy whole society.

Screwing around with no regards to the consequences, no regards to the people you are hurting, no regards to others' physical health and well-being, no regards to your own physical health and well-being, no regards to anyone's emotional health and solvency.  That is a horrible environment for children to be in.  And it is a horrible environment for humans to be in, period.

This is supposed to be "evolution???"

Instead of attempting to tear down and bring women down to men's degenerate levels, shouldn't we be trying to improve the human race? Shouldn't we be trying to encourage growth, personal reflection growth and advancement, and trying to encourage men to lift themselves up to women's levels?

Because, yes, if this is the case, if this is what sociobiology dictates, then this does in fact prove that women are more evolved than men.  Limiting childbearing to only a few children and then subsequently investing all your time and energy into those few offspring -- is much more evolved and civilized that trying to shoot for the maximum number physically possible.

I have seen slight variations of this before, unfortunately.  The negative influence always, always, always brings down the good guy.  Always negatively influences the good guy.  It is hardly ever the other way around.  All the previous manifestations of this ___

This is the same phenomenon that is being demonstrated here.  Instead of calling out the so-called male sociobiology theories on their bullshyte and how this does not apply to civilized life, the counter-argument against this is merely saying,  "ohmigosh that is like so totally not true see females can like totally be whores just as much as males can."

This illogical knee-jerk drivel that i am seeing all over the place is a ridiculous juvenile reactionary response.

In essence, we are so evolved that we now have the capacity to decide whether or not we should continue letting evolution rule our thoughts, feelings, and lives.  So it’s as if evolution is a victim of its own success.

Which brings me to one point Boeree made that I found very interesting, and that I had not heard before.  In the section titled “Aggression in Human Beings,” he writes that one reason aggression is such a problem with humans is that we are so evolved that over time we lost our instinct of aggression, so in effect we also lost our ability to handle aggression.  However, there are many animals that do display aggression regularly, and I do not know how they “handle” it or if they do at all.

Ultimately, what Boeree, psychologists, biologists, and all other sociologists, including an aunt of mine, finally decide is that humans are a combination of nurture and nature.  In order to be a completely functional and rational population, we must take our cues from learned behavior and use good judgment, while not ignoring the impact evolution might have on us, good or bad.

Let's Get Some Things Straight: Evolution vs. Modern Traits

Ah, of course.  That old zombie of an idea that refuses to die.  This characterizes the wishy-washy, pseudo-academia field of evolutionary psychology.

The proposal that sleeping around, getting random people pregnant or getting pregnant by random people, spreading the seed, with no regard to what will become of those fetuses once they have hatched -- that this is somehow indicative of evolutionary success.  They especially seem to have a desperate frenzied fervor to insist adamantly that all males have a drive to be promiscuous and bed as many females as possible.  This is disgusting, so let us analyze and scrutinize this theory under a microscope.

The theory is posited by hiking-up-their-forties, still single, balding, paunchy, pudgy white male philosobabblers that have now happened to acquire a degree in pseudoscience, and are trying their damndest to foist their opinion on the general population.  They hope against hope that if they only just insist on this theory enough, they might be able to get a date.

You want to talk about evolution?  Let's talk about evolution.

What determines evolutionary fitness of a given organism in any species?  Let us assume that for the purposes of this exercise, neither a sense of right v. wrong nor emotional connection exist.  There are two ultimate factors:

1)  Desirable traits, the organism's biochemical and physical makeup, to be passed on through genes, -and-

2)  Procuring stuff -- food, shelter, safety.

Throughout the history of all dioecious species including early primates, these two factors were one and the same.  (Dioecious means that male and female reproductive systems are completely separated into two distinct genotypes.  For example, earthworms are not dioecious.  They are hermaphrodites; each and every earthworm is both male and female.)

This is true for humans in our ancient prehistory.  The two factors sprung from the same one general trait of an organism:  sheer physical ability.  Physical strength and athleticism were desirable as genes for obvious reasons.  Physical strength and athletic ability determined the capability to go hunt down a gazelle for food.  Physical fitness determined the ability to chase a bear away from one's offspring.  It determined the ability to chase physically weaker members of one's own species out of a cave or tree and then claim that domicile as one's own.

Only as the human species advanced into complex social structures, were these two phenomena divorced from each other as determinants of evolutionary fitness.

Back then, only *young* healthy males who were in tip-top physical shape were seen as feasible possibilities for procreation.

Older middle-aged males are kicked out of the tribe by the younger, stronger, healthier competitors.  Watch any nature documentary that follows a pride of lions through the Serengeti.  When younger male lions grow up a bit, and achieve a stature of physical prowess that can supersede that of the king of the tribe, guess what.  They overtake the pride.  They kick the old geezers out.

I am not just spitting out numbers.  The United States military has established 24 as the peak age for optimal physical fitness including reproductive ability.

***
You want to talk about evolution?  Let's talk about evolution.

Evolutionists insist that it is men's evolutionary drive to try to sleep with as many women as possible.  This is supposedly best to increase their chances of reproductive success.  It is a matter of probability and chance; sleep with as many females as possible, get as many females pregnant as possible.  Their adamant theory is that way back in our evolutionary ancestry, aka the caveman days, all males used this reproductive strategy.

Wrong.  Only the alpha male gets to reproduce with as many females as possible.

Only an alpha male that is able to demonstrate for a fact that he is alpha is going to get any tail.  "Alpha" traits out in the natural world, which resemble those in our distant past, are athleticism, strength, physical build, physical prowess.

Have you ever gotten mugged and let the mugger take your money?  Has your car ever been broken into?  Has your home ever been broken into?  Would you be able to fend off an attacker or intruder?

How tall are you?  What percent of your body weight is lean muscle mass?  How much can you bench?  Are you able to beat your buddies at arm-wrestling?  How about when they are sober?  Do you have any chronic medical conditions such as asthma, diabetes, tendency to gain excessive fat, any autoimmune disorders?  Do you drink?  That's an out.  Do you take recreational drugs?  That's an out.  Are you in any physical condition lower than military-grade?  That's an out.

Males that are physically healthy and strong tend to have a more capable and efficient immune system, can do heavy lifting more easily, and can heal and repair from injuries, such as broken bones, much more easily.

It is laughable that you think males want viable, healthy, robust offspring from females-- but that females would not want the exact same thing from males.

You really think women are magically somehow not going to seek health, fertility/virility in men?  The best indicators of reproductive success of men, meaning what would produce the healthiest, most robust offspring, are actually not so far removed from what indicates best chance of reproductive success of women.  A female doesn't want to look at non-pretty boy.


***
You want to talk about evolution?  Let's talk about evolution.

What determines desirable genes that a male would pass on to offspring?  Two main factors -- Healthy physical condition, and viable sperm.  And I will laugh in anyone's face if they try to tell me that a seventy-five-year-old man still produces healthy, viable, and motile sperm same as a twenty-five-year-old man is able to.  Some people are egged on in this notion by a couple of male public figures that on the surface seem to be able to produce offspring nearly in their triple-digit ages, such as Strom Thurmond.

What age is optimal for this?  The twenties are the prime physical age for a purveyor of this "evolutionary-based" logic to reproduce.

Thirty is kind of pushing it.  Fifty is a laugh, forty is a laugh.  [[[[___mention medical statistics for peak ages of maximum sp production.___]]]]]]

***

In the natural world, it is ladies' choice.  The females get to pick and choose whoever is the fittest male to father the offspring.

This is the reason that males of many species engage in ever more ostentatious (and entertaining) displays of beauty, physical prowess, and impressive feats of athleticism.  You have the peacocks with their beautiful grand plumage.  You have elk with their majestic towering, commanding racks (hehe racks).  Elk, deer, and others of these type of sure-footed beasts engage in violent displays of physical agility and force.  Males compete with other males in physical fights to see which one is more aggressive and physically fit.

Many have tried to suggest that the modern-day equivalents of men's "evolution" are intelligence, a good job, a sizeable paycheque --

No, no.  We do not use modern equivalents.  If we use modern equivalents for males, then we must also use modern equivalents for females.  That means males could not use the excuse that shapely symmetry or big boobs indicate that a woman would be a good mother.  Modern science has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that human males are not able to determine when a human females is most fertile. Medical science has proven that breast size and facial characteristics have very little to do with fertility, health of a fetus, or production of breast milk.  Yet somehow magically, evolutionary psychologists continue insisting that these traits are what males desire from females due to "evolution."

It is not much of a leap to follow that in the same vein as the popular evolutionary theory, modern-day jobs do not rate very high as indicators of evolutionary fitness of the homo sapiens.

Modern equivalents?  Uh, no, not too terribly, no.  According to all the assessments of how evolution as a behavioral motivation would manifest in the human species -- logic, reasoning, morals, respect, mutual respect and understanding, respect and acknowledgment of women as whole complete human beings and equals to men, people regarding each other as human beings deserving and worthy of care and concern -- none of these behaviors are part of evolution.  This exclusion would extend to occupations of time that consume intelligence, marketable skills, mathematics and logic reasoning, language or spatial skills.  None of these would be included in determining evolutionary fitness of males.

Yeah, you want to talk science with me, buddy?  I will put you where you belong.

---
If you are so damn worried about following the natural world, then the first things you should do are cut all your electricity and phone cables to your house, dissemble all your indoor plumbing, and burn all of your clothes including underwear.  Sorry, but you do not get to pick and choose which aspects of civilization you get to deploy.

What's that, someone wants to see my medical degree?  I'll show you mine after you show me yours.  It's called common sense, dumbass.  Kinda like how every person on the planet has an honorary degree in psychology, as well as one in sociology.

So, intelligence, compassion, commitment -- these do not register on your radar as emblems of an evolved progressive species?

So according to you, precepts of critical thinking, consideration of others' feelings, consideration of your own feelings and morals, and indeed having any at all, intelligence, dignity, social responsibility, treating others with respect, these do not count as evolution?

Growing up in a stable two-parent home in which the two parents love and respect each other, rather than breeding uncontrollably like rats -- these are not emblems of your evolution?

Sorry, but you cannot pick and choose which tenets of your own doctrine to practice or not.  What do you think you are, an organized religion?

If you can apply reason and logic to one aspect of your life, then you should be able to apply reason and logic to all aspects of your life.

No regard to those offsprings' nutritional and physical health, no regard to their emotional health, or no regard to whether they can read, write, or count.  These are behaviors well-established in government housing projects, mobile home parks, slums of third world countries.  They (males) have gotten pregnant as many different people as possible, or they (females) have gotten pregnant by as many different people as possible.  Their children are scattered loosely around the town or village, whatever the case may be depending on the size of the surrounding population.  Children consume usually two hundred calories or less per day (that is equivalent to one can of beans) and most are not able to attend school past the fourth or fifth grade.

Regarding the ones here in America, children born under these circumstances are not able to graduate high school.  Growing up they receive very poor quality nutrition of food, not even close to the optimal amounts of food (that would mean not too little and not too much).

However, if the parents had bore only a few children, then they would have invested all their energy, time, and effort into raising those few children, thereby creating healthy, functional, normal, productive members of society.

Feminism And Democracy: Too Naive Part 2

As feminists, we can’t just sit here and be in denial about how a lot of Homo sapiens, including men and women, really are.

If you really claim to be a feminist, then that means you have to be an intelligent woman.  That means you have to be able to observe the world carefully.  You must possess the full capacity to make objective empirical observations.  Notice the events around you n see whats really happening.  This is the scientific method, and you need to utilize it.

You cannot simply be biased and overemotional, begging and pleading that the world match your imagined ideals.  Yes, I really want that all human beings should be intelligent, possess sound reasoning capabilities, have good judgment, understand the concept of consequences, be able to weigh the pros and cons of a situation, and make smart informed decisions.  All human beings including both men and women.  Emotionally that entails what I would like in an ideal world.

But is that what's really happening?

Is the entire human population intelligent?  Is the entire human population capable of critical thinking, weighing the pros and cons of any decision?  Intelligent enough to handle their own [[__]]]?

Of course not.  Not all men are definitively, conclusively capable of being smart and utilizing good judgment.  There is no compelling reason to think that all women are.
(also, for rthe part where I tlk abtou women do not havce mental acuity, mental acumen,, rephrase it so first I state the entire human race.  de-emphasize that I mean only wmen.))