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.
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.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment