Women's IQs And Motherhood

IQ and other indicators of higher evolution apply to both men and women.

If women don’t have higher IQs, then they will not be able to have lives that are genuinely successful, happy, n fulfilling. [[ poss e.g., they are not promiscuous, they are much more choosy n wise when choosing sexual partners, n they don’t have nearly as many.  They are more likely to choose useful college degrees; n they are better mothers, they have fewer children, and they are more devoted w time n energy into raising each child.

I think this is the big piece that is missing. — IQ indicators of women are in many ways the most important driving force for advancement and progress of the human race.

There is a seamlrss perfect link, a perfect glorois full-bodied flrshed-out perfect relation between women’s their ability to be good devoted mothers, and women’s iq. **perh this too could be a blazing mind-blowing epiph. this could be the fisrt time that I really truly discovered/ postulated this. that women’s iq is directly causality with their capability of being good mothers.

at end (should I bring up the opp evidence whichbis actually in fact indeed evidence for what I am saying?? wherein, women that breed like rats, are physically durable n sturdy n therefore that is why they produce large quantities of children? n that this is precisely the exact self-same reason whyyy they are not able to
notice how the cause n effect are effortlessly seamlessly grafted into one another. (You know I’m serious, as I never use the phrase ‘one another’ if I can help it.)  Is she a poor (subpar) parent, because she produced too many kids?  Or did she produce too many kids because she is low- IQ and never planned on being a devoted parent in the first place?

This is a thing that so many evo-psychologists always conveniently omit or skip over whenever discussing IQ.  Notice the glaring hollow cognitive dissonance here.  aha 2 things emerged. 1) they always insist that only physical indicators of health are indicators for evolution of woem. rahter than intelligence n emotional stability. 2) and due to this [[[__ damit cantt find words__]] how men have supposedly evolved, men choose partners for mating. prioritize only women’s physical hralth above all else, n to the detriment of all else. lartners rather than
.it is quite tidiculous that evo-psychs have really truly convinced themselves that wimne are going to seek moder-day-equivalent traist when choosing men.
yet simulteosuly they also think men are going to seek caveowmn traits in modern-day women.

This is why libertarians and atheists are assholes

Sadism in sex?  What the hell is this shit?!

I read a few -- sigh; for lack of a better term, we shall call them "opinion articles" defending this sick, violent crime.  This is the exact same abuse, torture, violence inflicted on women since the beginning of the human species.

Now it is simply dressed up, couched in some willfully elusive, purposely misleading language, repackaged in a whip and chain and dog collar, and sold to the public.  But upon applying some critical thinking, one will find that it is the same sickening mind games that r--ists have been forcing onto women since time eternity.

You see the type of vehement fervor with which they insist that the victims are fully consenting and agreeing one hundred percent.  This is sickening.  It is also baffling at first, until you begin to recognize patterns wherein this parallels the verbiage of r--sits.  Date r--ists also usually insist that they did nothing wrong.  They insist that the victim was fully willing and enthusiastic.

[[[[[[ You see the type of vehement fervor with which they insist that the victims are fully consenting, agreeing "adults."  refuted.  And as far as being considered adults, these are kids that merely had their 18th birthdays in recent days.  And this is the first experience being away from their parents for an extended length of time.]]]]]]

psychological warfare
It is also sickening psychological warfare.  They are masters of manipulation and [[[ defeating someone's self-preservation instincts.  Systematically, methodically breaking down a person's subconscious alarm bells.

They resort to accusing someone who does not want to participate in this gruesome psychological torture of being a prude, of being "not comfortable in their own skin," of being "not comfortable with their body," of being not "truly able to let go of religious shackles of their repressive upbringing,"

frighteningly similar rhetoric to that which is used by [[[
The proponents of this are manipulative psychopaths.  One sicko tried to use the argument, and this is a direct quote, "they should not be denied sesual fulfillment just because the need from that fulfillment originated from a bad place."

What the hell...??  That is so twisted and illogical I don't even know where to begin to refute that argument.  But I will try.  Erm, if it originates from a negative place and is fueled by that negative connotation, then it is probably not fulfillment.

The psychosocial, emotional responses in the females that are coerced into this -- are very similar to that which has been seen for years in r-- victims and victims of domestic violence.  A variation of this is Stockholm syndrome.

Often, r-- victims will also try to convince themselves that nothing is wrong.  They will avoid thinking about the trauma that happened to them.

This is not just blind opinion, folks.  This is gathered from sixty years of research on the psychiatry of victims of violence and r--.

This also sounds eerily similar to things that victims of domestic try to tell themselves so they can rationalize the situation.  They often tell themselves this is not a big deal as a coping method to survive the traumatic experience.  It is like Stockholm syndrome, in which the victim might try to convince herself that what is happening is okay.  She will try to tell herself that if she in any way felt hurt or angry, it was probably because SHE is in the wrong.  How dare she feel hurt or angry at the way her male partner treated her?  If she had just not bothered him, then he would not have thrown her against a wall and punched her in the face.  She should not have bothered her male partner, why was she nagging him or bothering him?  She deserved to be slapped or punched.

Sadistic subhumans blame the victim for not being happy with their abuse.  "If you don't agree to do it, you're not modern sexually liberated woman."  "Why can't you be fulfilled this way?  Why can't you be pleased this way?"

Like most liberal extremist nonsense, it sounds very similar to abusive, extremist conservative rhetoric nonsense.  This sadomasochist stuff tells women that if they are not fulfilled by this, then they are prudes and sex-haters.  Just like how in the notorious 1950s, women that did not serve and depend on a man, by being sexually submissive, bringing him martinis, were seen as less womanly than other women that did that.  Women were told they were less worthy of love and respect if they were not subservient to men with housework and cleaning and forgetting their own professional careers.

Much like that, now the sadomasochist pimpers are trying to tell these young vulnerable female students that if they do not force themselves into this, they are less womanly than females who do acquiesce to this subjugation.

That is what they are saying, is it not?  That if women do not engage in this, they are prudish, puritan, Christian fundamentalist.  In other words, less womanly.

This is the same sort of twisted sick logic that r--ists use against their victims. 
--
Of course the abusers deny it; that is not really surprising.  All abusers and criminals deny being abusive or criminal.  All abusers think they are healthy normal individuals that contribute positively to society.

Therefore we can see, conclusively, that their opinions of themselves are meaningless.  People are not good at assessing themselves.  Sexual sadists are not exempt from this.  Sadists are probably more susceptible to having skewed inaccurate perceptions of themselves, just like serial r--ists and serial killers.  Pathological, antisocial.

Observing all of it altogether, this is really no different from the way that some males throughout all of human history viewed females.  They thought females were there solely for the purpose of pleasuring males.

It's just that now, they are frighteningly sneaky and underhanded in their public relations.
-----
We are supposed to be about preventing violence against women.  Humanity is supposed to be increasing empathy, compassion, respect for fellow humans.  Yet somehow remarkably, these sickos found a way around that.  They managed to convince some people that women _desire_ violence and abuse.  And specifically, they are saying that women desire sexual violence and abuse.

Let us pose a question to them.  Why are you sadists so against women seeking counseling?  What's wrong with encouraging people that do this, to seek psychological treatment if they wish?  What possible good reason is there for angrily denouncing psychological guidance?

They are livid, they are rabid foaming at the mouth at any suggestion that people that engage in this might seek counseling.  Why is this?  Are they afraid that some counseling will help people think more clearly and become a bit more focused?  And then, perhaps the victim will be able to see that they are in fact being abused, and worse, that they are consenting to that abuse?

Again, apply critical thinking.

No, no, we do not use modern equivalents

This is absolutely a fascination topic, so I think it merits much further observation.  Let us dig really deep into this subject, because there is a lot of woefully unexplored material here.  I stumbled upon this realization and at first I thought it was ground-breaking, and truly it is.  Then I realized it was more than that; it is indeed self-evident truth that has been hidden in plain sight all along.

Several evolutionary psychologists have attempted the laughable and incorrect argument that the modern-day equivalent of male physical fitness and dominance are a formal education and a paycheque that allows one to be able to afford to support a family, up to and including success in business, career, and/or politics --

No, no, we do not use modern equivalents.  It is severely, pathetically comical that so many evolutionary psychologists -- all fat, pudgy, severely out-of-shape white males -- try to make the claim that modern-day methods of acquiring monetary wealth somehow magically replace eons-old human instinctive drivers for reproductive success.

Here is why that line of thinking is incorrect.  When considering the male sex, only in very recent human progress has fitness for acquiring sustenance, provisions, and shelter been regarded as a separate entity from physical capability and physical appearance.

Let us take the discussion back in time roughly 500,000 years.  Our discussion spans from that time to about 20,000 years ago.  Let us examine the drivers and incentives for reproduction back then.

In our evolutionary history, a male's physical prowess was one and the same with his ability to obtain food and shelter.  If a male specimen was good-looking and muscular, this was the same thing as being able to provide for a family.

If he was well-built, solid, muscular, robust (not fat, mind you), this directly and obviously meant he will have the means to hunt for food, tirelessly gather firewood to heat the home, and protect the home from danger.  He would have strength and stamina to allow him to overpower and defeat any attackers.  He would have the capability to defend the home and his family from danger.  From intruders, from dinosaurs and sabretooth tigers, etc.  I jest, but you get the idea.

This of course extended to his physical looks, his face, including bone structure; eyesight; eye placement; adequate, nay, respectable amount of hair growing on his head.  This is because all of this, superficial looks as well as physical stature, is directly correlated with health.  His facial and hair looks and his body were integrated and all of it indicated his level of physical health.

If a male was very good-looking and had good physical stature, this means he will be in possession of natural abilities to obtain food and shelter.  For obvious reasons, this is what females would actively seek out.  She wants these resources for herself and her offspring.  And she of course would want to pass on those optimal genes to her children.

It is very odd, illogical, and remarkably convenient that evolutionary psychologists claim that modern-day men prefer traits that prehistoric females possess, such as looks and physicality.

Yet at the same time, evo-psychs always insist that somehow, magically modern-day women do not prefer traits that prehistoric males possess, such as looks and physicality.

Stated in another way:  evo-psychs insist that men desire women who possess primitive indicators of reproductive success.  In other words, men desire primitive women.

Yet, somehow magically they expect that these women should have primitive traits while simultaneously the women are not going to harbor primitive desires.

Did you catch that?  That is illogical and contradictory.

The truth is that if a female is primitive in that way (in her own indicators of physical health), then she is probably going to be primitive in her reproductive preferences as well.  This primitive woman that modern-day males desire-- will desire a male that has primitive indicators of reproductive success.  She does not want to reproduce with a modern-day male.

Sorry folks, but instinctively, men and women are not so different sometimes.  Instinctively, women most likely still desire a physically elite male with which to reproduce.  That is what is programmed into our primitive origins of our species.  Males and females both want to mate with a physically superior specimen of the opposite sex.

It is the height of denial to attempt the argument that women are not also motivated by these primitive desires.

*Or, perhaps not so much.  In Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink," he makes the interesting observation that several of the CEOs in this country are all tall.

On some level of awareness, some plane of consciousness, admit it.  You evo-psychs have always known this.  An upper-middle-class woman has been married to her upper-middle-class husband that is paunchy, pudgy, balding short fat.  The woman is living in luxury, owns designer clothes, belongs to a country club, and has every need of survival more than taken care of.  She has been more than provided for.  But she is screwin the hot, young pool boy.  Or she is screwing the hot young pizza delivery boy.

R-- perpetuates undesired genes

Consider what this line of non-thinking non-theory truly means.

First of all, look at the evidence against this sick, psychopathic notion.  The most basic of common-sense observations easily contradicts this pseudo-theory.  A male that has optimal genetic material, evidenced by his phenotype, appearance, characteristics, traits -- has no problem getting women to accept his genetic material.

The female is the one that has to invest an enormous energy, time, nutrients, effort into the making of an organism.  All biologists and evolutionists acknowledge this fact.  Therefore she will be very discerning in her choice of genetic donor.  Why would she waste time growing offspring that does not come from optimal male DNA?

Short answer -- she would not.  Therefore, if a woman willingly accepts a male's DNA, he probably produces optimal genetic material.

On the other hand, if a male finds that no woman will willingly reproduce with him and therefore he chooses to resort to r---, this fact alone should tell him in and of itself that he does NOT possess optimal genetic material.  A female that turns down a male is controlling for unwanted genes.

The only males that feel the need to resort to r--- are those that have undesirable, suboptimal genes.  Alpha males do not have any trouble spreading their genetic material.  They can do it without force.  Secondary or beta males, etc.  Only males that cannot get anyone to willingly accept their genetic material resort to r---.

Why are they trying to pollute the gene pool with their inferior, undesirable genes by committing r---?  A r--ist must therefore do the entire gene pool of the species a favor and stop committing this crime.

Oh, what, you think that your genes are worth something?  Sorry to tell you the truth, but genes are only worth the extent that someone else will accept them.

Oh, really r-- is justified by evolution because it leads to reproduction of a male r--ist's genes?  Yeah, pull the other one, it plays Hail Mary.  What else you got?  Is looking at r--glorifying pr0n also because of evolution?  How about video games that have r-- as one of the goals?  Is that also covered under the insurance of evolution and reproduction?

How about the atrocities that transgressed at the lollapalooza rehash in 1999?  I guess those sick assholes surrounding the r--ists and screaming, chanting egging them on with rants of "yeah, yeah, reproduce, create a zygote!  continue your genes!"  I guess they were rooting for the r--s to perpetuate their genes.

I'm thinking perhaps this is simply another territorial defense mechanism from insecure males.  They see that women are entering science, mathematics, engineering, and technology fields in droves.  And not only that -- we are good at it.  So in a panicked frenzy of anger, bitterness, and resentment, they probably fumbled around, "Ohno! but-but-but-but what can we do to keep them out??  Umm, I dunno I dunno...  I know!  Let's tell women that "science" does not want them!  Let's tell people that the sickest, most violent hate crime against women is perfectly justified and reasonable in the light of 'science!!'  Ha! Perfect, that's it!"

The justification of this pseudo-theory seems to follow thusly:  just propagate your genes as isolated molecular products, the cost to society and fellow human beings be damned.

However, by this logic, murder, armed robbery, and plain old stealing are also evolutionary.  Murder is justified by evolution because if you murder someone, then you can take all their resources -- food, shelter, safety.  This certainly contributes to your fitness as an organism, correct?  Same with armed robbery.

That might very well have been what happened -- hundreds of thousands of years ago.  Our very distant ancestors might have casually resorted to r--.  They did in fact murder, steal, loot, pillage.  That is precisely the reason that that is *not* evolution.  The sort of behavior, which was rampant long ago and far enough back that the culprits were technically a different species, is not evolution.  Being a violent, primitive criminal is not due to evolution.

If anyone tries to justify r-- under any sort of reasoning (as it were), they would have to either:  concede that we as humans, as an evolved species, cannot continue to do this.  To continue to commit crime would prove that we are not any more evolved than any other primates.

-Or- admit that we are not nearly as evolved as we should be.  We are about as psychologically sound and solvent as the average baboon.  We still only have the critical thinking skills of a gorilla, ergo we have a lot of catching up to do.

A gross implication of evolution

Let us look at all this from another angle.  Let us suppose physical fitness is no longer considered a factor in evolutionary fitness or having genes worthy of being passed on.

There are two factors that determine a species', and indeed an individual organism's, evolutionary fitness -- internal resources and external resources.  External are food, shelter, safety.  Internal are genes, physical prowess, ability to reproduce.  For the sake of this discussion let us assume that a species has no complex thought processes or capacity for empathy or compassion.  We shall also assume that any given organism of a species does not possess these capabilities.

If internal resources are paramount, then this would be a good motivator to spread the gene pool out as much as possible.  This is a good motivator against inbreeding.  This would select for fitter organisms because a nonrelated individual could introduce beneficial genes into particular family's gene pool.  Or possibly, an outsider's genes would contain a dominant gene that could cancel out an unwanted recessive gene in a family's gene pool.  [[[gravitating]]]] for the ability to produce healthy offspring.

However, if external resources of food and shelter are most important, then consanguinity is the way to go.  This is not as strange as it sounds.

Also there is the grave risk that an outsider alien to the family bloodline could bring in a number of undesirable genes.

This is why the whole entire freakin royal line of ancient Egypt married brother and sister to each other, as was customary.  This is why European royals would marry within their families.  This is why current Saudi royals and other Saudi wealthy families arrange marriages between first cousins.

If only the ability to obtain resources and sustenance is the important factor, then this is a pretty good argument in favor of inbreeding.

All inbreeding of royal families throughout history has been motivated by the twin dynamics of gene pool preservation and keeping the money in the family.

--Ancient Egyptians.
--Elizabethan and Victorian Europe.
--Current-day Saudi royal family and other rich families.
--Neanderthals -- there weren't that many of them around.  They would have had to inbreed to some extent.

--OR-- evolutionists could make the *logical* conclusion that all these things are primitivity, savagery, degeneration, and devolution.  None of these things are in fact true evolution.

Words Have Definitions that Must Be Adhered To

One of the most abused words in the English language is "evolution."  Now, sure, there are plenty of words that are misused and thrown about, such as "love," "feelings," "communication," all manner of abstract nouns.  There is no question about that.

But I believe that this particular term should receive special concern for the reason that so-called scientists are using the word with abandon.  Also, the word "evolution" is charged, keg powder volatile, aggravated, with bias from both sides.  It is politically stretched to snapping like one of Petrocles' victims.

The field of so-called evolutionary psychology appears to be fraught with corruption, appalling lack of self-awareness on the part of the researchers, ___

It is flooded with teeming of what appears to be simple wishful thinking from these psychologists.

I am worried because this nonsense is being sold to the public as "science."  Science is a vast, broad field that is supposed to deal only in facts, observable and repeatable data, and conclusions arrived at from those facts and data.  I am simply trying to continue on the work of the notable skeptic and debunker, James Randi.

"Slap a new label on it, put it on a lunchbox, and call it --" like Malcolm was saying in Jurassic park.

Crackpot, cockamamie theories.  The "experts," the so-called researchers, the people who write these sort of articles and then manage to get them published in peer-reviewed journals are the ones perpetuating this hogwash.  It does not seem that they subject this to a whole lot of critical analysis.  And unfortunately, the peer reviewers evidently were shadowed by wishful thinking as well.

They have been pulling ridiculous nonsense out of their collective ass.

*The notion that men want to whore around with as many women as possible due to "evolution" and would never dream of settling down because that would harsh his jive and cramp his style, and that women have an evolutionary draw to remain chaste, monogamous, virginal, pure, to never have sex at all other than the three times to produce three offspring, et cetera.

The most important thing to remember is that none of this is true to establish working evolution.  If humans wish to move civilization forward and foster a healthy society, they love the one they're with.  To keep a species consistently on the forward track in the evolution train, people need to pair-bond.  I already covered this topic and debunked it in an earlier article.  I have also provided links to researchers who have discredited these unscientific fantasies, so I won't rehash it all.

*A particularly comical theory is the posit that because humans do not have the engorged blue buttocks similar to other primates, that this species required other indicators.  Therefore for humans, the butt transitioned to the boobs.  Good lord, I wish I were making this up.

Personal opinions and biases are coloring what should be objective observation and critical thinking.

**Just as psychology and philosophy inevitably fall victim to the unfortunate ___

Several people have observed this to be true for some of the arguably greatest thinkers of our era, including Nietzsche, Marx, et al.

It is not necessarily the psychologists' own fault for this peculiar trend.  After all, within its very definition, its very nature, the fields of psychology and observational biology are subject to the whims and fancies of the proprietors.  The definition of Psychology is the study of human behavior, faults, imperfections.

Like [[[___ some philosopher said,]]]], "If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, then we would be so simple that we could not."  This is merely an extension of that.  We are all human, including the humans that study us and study themselves.  Therefore they inevitably fall prey to the same faults to which ALL humans fall prey.

Humans are prone to personal bias.  Therefore, of course psychologists, including those that study any and all branches of psychology, are also prone to personal bias.

Blowing a lot of hot air will inevitably happen.

**We have observed this to be true of ordinary people in realms of sociopolitical opinion, social mores, political leanings, religious preferences.

So the [[[[point]]] is, are psychologists and current-day philosophers so arrogant that they do not see themselves as potentially fallible?

As the situation is currently in evolutionary psychology, it is mostly conjecture and opinion.  Does no one remember the "Dihydrogen monoxide" experiment, which called for cautionary thinking against junk science?

Correlation does not prove causality.  This is a concept that even people that have taken an introductory sociology course can grasp.
--
Read this essay written by a blogger, which states that empathy, compassion, and cooperation are signs of an evolved species, and violent crimes including r-- are not.  ____

One might put forth the argument that because this person does not have some sort of degree in psychology, their argument is invalid.  I put forth to you this question:  why does one necessarily need a degree in psychology to hold a valid, logical argument in psychology?  If this were a matter of treating patients, then yes, one would need a medical degree.  But evolutionary psychologists are not treating any patients here.  They are only making broad generalizations.

This is such a discipline that a person can arrive at as much of a sound conclusion simply by observing human behavior, doing extensive study on one's own, taking one or two classes in any of the social sciences, and informally reading psychology journals -- as by earning a formal degree in it.  Quite literally, social science is not rocket science in any way, shape, or form.  One does not need an advanced degree to be a skilled psychologist for the same reason that one does not need a veterinary degree to know why a pet dog is not properly laying eggs.

Again, fields like psychology and sociologically inevitably fall prey to human opinion.  These are not hard sciences in the way that natural sciences, mathematics, and engineering are.  Those are definitives that conclude absolute truths.  Something either is or isn't.

This is not the case with psychology and sociology.  Social science by definition is not an absolute discipline.  It is fluid, ___ elusive, ever-changing,

It is impossible

This is an unavoidable truth of these disciplines.

    draw parallels, hypotheses__

Examples:

Social Darwinism

Keith Booker, president of the Wilmington, Del., chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, says that Gottfredson's research "... is being done in the name of white supremacy... the Pioneer Fund supports only research that tends to come out with results that further the division between races...by justifying the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another."[1]

1. "Delaware Reaches Accord On Race Studies" By Ron Kaufman The Scientist 6[14]:1, Jul. 06, 1992

Now, I want to clarify that it is most certainly possible to be rational, unbiased, and truly analyze with an [[[__unbiased__]]] eye.  However, this would require tremendous self-control, a capacity that most humans do not possess.

Are so-called evolutionary psychologists actually trained to handle their job with professionalism and courtesy?  I mean in their college courses, are they trained to put aside their own personal prejudices when observing and analyzing human behavior?  In order for a professor to do this, he/she would have to provide realistic examples.  They must mention real-world situations that might have happened to people, to which students can relate.  They have the professional responsibility to bring up real-world instances that are common sources of error, and to demonstrate how to weed out personal desire from social theory.  There is taint.  They only see what they want to see.

--[[[[ and most impr, we have morals.  We have self-restraint____
** we have have the ability to refrain from committing criminal acts.
** we have the capacity for self-restraint [[[restrain ourselves from succumbing to violent, primitive urges.]]]]]
]]]]]]]]

We are sentient beings.  [[[[As members of the specie Homo sapiens, we have consciousness.  We are capable of consciously controlling our actions.  We have the capacity to think about our actions before [[[doing,, carryijg them out]]].  We can think bef we speak, and we can think bef we act.

We have the ability to weigh the pros and cons of certain decisions.  We have the ability to guess the consequences of any potential action we consider doing.  We can extrapolate into the future and determine what the most likely outcome would be of a hypothetical situation.

___pigs dogs apes if physiccal__. if that's all they've got going for them, then yeah __physicla designations would be an indicator of evolutionary fitness.

Hovew we homo sapiens are a higher order of being.  We are a higher life form.
-----
*mentin difference between abstarct nouns ans concrete nouns.  A simialr ___ exists-Same thing with human behavior and psycholoy.  There are concrete [[__descriptors of that exist within the physical universe ((realm))_]]] such as biology.  These are easily quantifiable and measurable in terms of pure [[[[physicalit???__]]

*there are also abstract behavioral patterns such as conscience and consciousness.  [[[aspects of the human experience]]]

Why Atheists Are A-Holes

Even without having to fall back on the old standby of a deity, atheists still manage to be misogynistic as all get out.

It's just that they no longer have a God delusion to fall back on anymore, so they have to find another delusion.  Similar to how extremist religious fundamentalists/zealots make the claim that a female's body is not her own; it belongs to the dude that wants to make her his child bride, or it belongs to G-d, or to a fetus.

In a similar fashion, pseudo-evolutionists wish to make the claim that a female's body is not her own.  It belongs to whomever else due to whatever reason, whether evolution, reproduction, the selfish gene, et cetera.

If you are such great damn scientists and biology-based ethicists, then you must realize there is no reason to end biological arguments there.  Hell, if we're going to make so-called biological arguments, there are a lot of other potential biology-based regulations we can implement.

A girl at around age twelve develops the ability to dispense an ovum once every month from her ovaries.  She develops the ability to house and carry a fetus to term.

A boy at around age twelve develops the ability to produce sperm from his body.  Since we are making biological arguments here, after all, it only makes sense that__
Biologically and sexually, these two twelve-year olds are adults.  They fully possess the capability to produce and grow an entire new human being.

What's that you say?  That we are higher beings with the capacity for reason?  For logic, for levelheadedness, for having the ability to judge a situation, weigh the pros and cons, and determine the optimal outcome that will give the best possible results?

Self-touted atheists seem to think that they alone possess the patent on the capability to utilize logic.  Anyone who disagrees with them must by default be "illogical."  Notice that they seem to think the ability to pronounce "evolution" correctly alone qualifies them to wear a gold star bearing the label "science-y."  Many of them do not have a remarkable wealth of scientific knowledge outside the very narrow topic of evolution.

How about empathy, compassion, respect, care and concern for your fellow human beings?  What about conducting oneself with self-respect and dignity?  So-called logic-driven, scientifical, evolution-thumpers always seem to skip this very large faction of human cognitive function.  Their brand of logic is, not surprisingly, a lot of bs.

Evolutionary Psychology- This Is Not Progress Part II

Past evolution does not determine our future destiny.

"Evolutionary psychology" is a contradiction in terms -- it is an oxymoron.  You know what an oxymoron is, don't you?  Remember being introduced to that word in high school English class?  It means a contradiction in terms.

By its very definition, abstract concepts such as sociology, society, psychology, cannot be biology.  Biology is a definite, distinct, concrete concept.  It is actual science.  It is not of the evasive, fluid, ever-changing nature that is the "social sciences."  That phrase is most likely used euphemistically, to allow the studiers (people that major in those subjects in college, and people that write editorial articles about them) to feel better about themselves.  To help themselves feel that they are studying something useful.

We are evolved human beings.  We have the capability for conscious thought, willpower, and control over our actions.  We have the capacity to control so that all of our thoughts indiscriminately do not turn into actions.

Therefore, I strongly believe that we have evolved to the point that we can decide for ourselves whether or not we want to continue to let evolution determine our human behavior.  This is uniquely our gift and our blessing, as a species that has only existed for a few tens of thousands of years.  It is also our curse and our burden.  We cannot simply use the excuse that our genes made us do it.  Or that we have no control over our instincts.  To do that would be irresponsible and morally outrageous.

One might ask, why are no other species expected to display this sort of conscious decision-making?  Why has no other species been expected to display a conscience?  Why are they not expected to deliberately affect their actions?  Why can other species simply follow their instincts wherever "evolution" leads them, whereas we should not?

First of all, let us examine the definition of the word "evolution" as it is currently used in evolutionary psychology circles.  Evolution, as used in that context, means specifically the evolutionary *history* of any given species.  It of course includes the entire evolutionary tree of all species of living things on the planet.

The word should not be used, as is mistakenly assumed by far too many people, as an explanation of *current* human behavior or of *future* human behavior.  That is not the correct definition of "evolution."  The word is not being used, as it correctly should be, as a study of the molecular DNA and protein patterns expressed in the genotype and phenotype of an animal.

Remember being in seventh grade English class and learning the difference between concrete nouns and abstract nouns?  Unfortunately, the word "evolution" is used nowadays as a descriptive of abstract behavioral and social concepts.  This is incorrect.  "Evolution" used correctly as a term deals purely with the physical natural sciences of chemistry and biology.

The specific definition of a word including its usage has implications.  "Evolution" is used by too many sound bite-writers as a descriptive to excuse away any abhorrent behavior.  Evolution from a scientific standpoint -- which should be the only standpoint worth considering -- is strictly a genetic descriptor.  It is an explanation for genes located on chromosomal material, which contribute to protein synthesis.  Evolution is, and should be, studied at the molecular level.

Biological evolution has been the driving force throughout much of the earth's history only because all those other species lacked self-awareness.  They did not possess good judgment, nor the ability to weigh options, nor the conscious ability to make decisions.  They simply existed.

Raw instinct was the only guiding factor for behavior.  The direction of biochemical generation of more members of a given species was what drove reproduction as well as mutations.  “The selfish gene” was fine as the primary driver of behavior for all creatures that came before us.

However, this cannot pass muster with us modern-day Homo sapiens.

What are the tenets of evolved, civilized beings?
They must have a capacity for rational thought as well as for abstract thought.  Display empathy, compassion, worrying about the feelings of others.  Also have a capability for imagination, creativity, daydreaming.  Being lost in thought seems to be a peculiarity of humans.  higher beings have sentience, they are self-aware.

Evolutionists, this is true whether you want to admit it or not.  Simple biological urges do not make a human more evolved than another human who can choose not to succumb to basal urges.

This is what anthropologists study, especially when they compare reasoning processes of various primates.  If apes such as gorillas and chimpanzees can display advanced thought, and they are more evolved than reptiles and amphibians and amoeba, then it stands to reason that their ability for abstract thought is a result of evolving to a higher order of life.

Then we must follow this line of reasoning to its logical conclusions.  Humans are more evolved forms of apes.  There is no excuse for humans not to engage in morality, empathy, compassion, and humanity.

Evolutionists must concede with this.  If humans are the most advanced, evolved species on the planet, then this is the only logical outcome as a result of determining what is the best behavior.

Simply put -- precisely because we are evolved, is why we cannot simply let our "wants" do our thinking for us.  We have the ability not to just follow our instincts blindly.  Not to surrender to our basal instincts.  Many folks will argue that a penchant for settling disputes through violence and an inclination towards reproducing any time one feels "horny" are artifacts of evolution.

However, as evolved beings, we cannot use those excuses.  Humans might still have violent urges, and humans might still have promiscuous urges, but that is not all we have.  We also have the ability to deduce the consequences of our actions.  If we have a capacity for reasoning and higher thought, then we have a responsibility as the most evolved species on the planet to put those capacities to good use.

The incorrect version of the word "evolution" dictates that any physical superiority of one individual, or of society, outweighs any psychological morality.  Anyone with any physical defects, for example heart disease, diabetes, kidney failure -- should all just be conveniently killed.  This would preserve all available resources for the optimal specimens of the population.

According to the "wrong" evolution, in the interest of keeping undesirable genes out of the gene pool, anyone with any mental deficiencies would not be allowed to live.  This means that
This is not so far-fetched.  The ancient Spartans exercised this very practice.
In this instance, the mental health of the population is questionable.

I think we have evolved to the point that we can decide for ourselves if we want to continue letting physical impulses dictate our behavior.

Because we have judgment, we have consciences, we know right from wrong.  If we have full consciousness, then we can consciously make decisions.

I know that some stupid evolution-as-excuse-for-immoral-behavior windbag will think they are oh so clever with this query:  "If we are just apes, then why do you have to be so judgmental?  If we believe in evolution, and therefore that means we came from apes, then why can we not be promiscuous, amoral troglodytes?"

Actually, I can answer that one too:  Because we *are* evolved beings.

Precisely because we came from apes, because we can trace our lineage back to primitive hominids -- is why we must hold ourselves to a higher standard.  Precisely because we came from apes:  "from" meaning we are no longer there.  We have grown psychologically and morally.  We have moved on.

We are sentient creatures.  We are self-aware beings.  We have evolved to the point that we cannot rely only on physical pre-destined behavior.  We have the gift of judgment.  We have been given a sense of right and wrong.  We have the ability to weigh the pros and cons of a situation, and decide on the best course of action that would have the most moral outcome for the most people.

We are better than gorillas and baboons and other lower apes.  Because we are humans, we have morality, empathy, good judgment, compassion.  Just because we believe that evolution happened is no excuse to be okay with promiscuity, having casual sex, not bothering to establish a working emotional relationship with a person first before deciding to have sex with them.

more arguments in favor of cooperation.  incl members of the same species not violently attacking each other.
in addition to the arguments already put forth by Darwin and others.  in Origin of Species (first edition, Ch. 8), Darwin called this behavior the "one special difficulty, which at first appeared to me insuperable, and actually fatal to my theory."

Cooperation, empathy, and compassion are the markers of an evolved, advanced species.  It is behavior and choices, not raw biological physical instinct, that determine the degree of evolution that a species has undergone.  Not being a violent criminal that victimizes another.  Evolution is actually quite an ideal argument in favor of absolute morality.

While We're On The Subject... Let Us Turn The Argument On Its Head

If we are going to try to assert that r-- is due to evolution, then by this same reasoning we would have to conclude that <all> forms of physical conquering are motivated by evolution.  Might makes right, after all.

*Fistfights between males.  a
is fitter than a physically weaker
This is where the concept of war originated.  The team that wins the war has proven its fitness over the other team.  Thus, the winning team gets to preserve its genetic fitness by copulating.  females would be drawn to the

Many attempt to argue that the modern equivalent of physical fitness and dominance are a formal education and a paycheque that allows one to be able to afford to support a family --

No, no, we do not use modern equivalents.  In considering men, only in recent human progress has fitness for acquiring sustenance, provisions, and shelter been regarded as a separate entity from physical capability and physical appearance.

*Or, perhaps not so much.  In Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink," he makes the interesting observation that several of the CEOs in this country are all tall.

----
Let us dissemble their pseudo-logic argument and then pulverize it one piece at a time.

They think that evolution is due to physical prowess as stand-in for logic.

By that argument, there is no reason for anyone to care if a victim is murdered who is not related to them.

What about genocide?  If it is not your immediate family being murdered, i.e., no one that carries a fragment of your genes, then there is no reason to care.

Destruction of people outside your blood family.  This would increase the dominance of your family, and will preserve the fitness of your genes.  Your genes after all, would have access to the best resources if your genes are the ones in power.

Plain survival and preference of one's own genes.  Plus dominance and power of your genes over someone else's genes.

*Fear of the unknown-- genes other than your own genes.  Early hominids would take an instant distrust to strangers.  From one angle, this makes sense.  There is no reason to trust a stranger -- they might kill all your babies and take all your stuff and your wimmin.

*Keeping stuff for yourself, for your own genes.

By a very small extension, this would include your distant relatives as well.  Any method possible to preserve one's own genetic pool, however distantly separated, would be a motivator.  People that look more like you are most closely related to you.  If anyone tries to say that r-- is because of evolution, then you would have to concede that racism is also an innate social motivation that has origins in evolution.

Following this same line of reasoning, you would have to make this concession as well.  Racism is nothing more severe than the assertion that one's own gene pool is best.

I am certainly not the first person to assert this.

*All genocide in the history of the world is based on this very postulate.

It is only logical that they were all motivated by evolution.  Ethnic cleansing is driven by the motivation to preserve one's own genes in their purest, most complete form.

This is precisely why Islamicist militant groups feel that they are entitled to world domination.  They want to destroy anyone that does not look like them and does not think like them.  This is precisely why white supremacist groups hate, loathe, and fear intermarriage and intermixing with other ethnic groups.  They want to preserve their way of life.  They are evolutionarily motivated, after all.

Sick; This Cannot and Should Not be Deemed "Science"

Those sick assholes think r--- is justified by evolution?  Wrong.

This is in response to some infuriating claims made by people recently, apparently desperate to have their names published somewhere in some notebook, even if the notebook itself is not endorsed by the scientific community.  These damned claims keep coming back to life like zombies that refuse to shut it and die.

Really?  So being a slave to one's basal instincts is considered evolution?  Not having any control over one's actions, not having the ability to prevent violent thoughts from turning into violent actions.

Jeebus kraist, I thought we had put this one to the grave a long time ago.  Lord.  We have already taken care of this accident of brain farts.  This has been dealt with, this has been debunked, discredited, exposed for the sham that it is.  Fellow real scientists and not perpetuators of this wannabe pseudoscience drivel, back me up here.

This is sickening.  Do I really have to sit here and launch into a long treatise on philosophy from an abstract winding road about why it is wrong?  Isn't it common sense, for goddess's sake?  It's wrong, it's gross, it's filthy, what else do you need to know?

Not having any control over one's urge to commit an act of violence?  Wrong.  Not evolution.  A creature wants to devolve back to being an ape or dog or baboon?  Then fine, commit all the crimes you want.

But if you want to evolve into a human being, you don't violate people.  In higher animals, *social* benefits take precedent over physical benefits.  This is the reason that intelligent, kind people who are sensitive to others' feelings are considered more evolved than people who think that looting and raping capabilities determine advantageousness.

Violating another human being's right to bodily autonomy, sense of self, and dignity is not "evolution."  It is savagery, degeneration, and primitivity.  If this -- abject force without any regard to morality, ethics, is considered "evolution," then using good judgment in any form should be considered anti-evolution.  This is following this argument to its logical conclusion.  The crime of r-- is considered evolution by certain people that call themselves "scientists," only because a physical goal of outcome, pregnancy, has taken precedence over any psychological goal of outcome of consent, trust, agreement.

And, as other feminists have said before me -- holy crap.  And you think feminists hate men?  The notion that men cannot control violent urges and in fact try to justify it, is possibly one of the most misandrous, man-hating statements ever made in the history of the planet.  Males are troglodytes, sickeningly subhuman apes, that are incapable of controlling their actions -- that is what these r--as-evolution promoters are saying.  You wanna talk about male-bashing!

It is about dominance and power.  That is it.

Geez, people.  I never thought I'd see the day that I would have to explain basic Psychology 101 to post-graduate evolutionary biologists.

-Really?  So if some sicko r-s a woman in the mouth or in the anus --look up crime statistics, this does happen-- I guess he's just hoping that she will become pregnant in this manner.

Or with inanimate objects.  I guess this sick sad asshole is hoping his sperm will magically osmose over to the aforementioned object and then manage to get transplanted in the victim's cervix.  sidenote:  uggggg gagggg.  I had to look away from the computer screen as I typed that because it was beyond nauseating.  But it was a point I had to make so I am retaining it in this essay.

In other words, the criminal will brutalize and violate whoever he sets his sights on at the moment.  Those sick a--hole evolutionists think that just because the victim happens to be female in many cases, this automatically indicates an evolutionary incentive?

Those sick a---hole evolutionists think__

Homosexual men do commit rape as well, against other men.  (I am well aware that liberals scratch and claw desperately at the notion that all gays are pure-hearted lily white angelic little angels.  Sorry to burst your bubbles, kids, but that is simply a lie.)  I suppose as the argument that r-- is motivated by evolutionary reasons of continuing one's genes, homosexual rapists are excellent proof of this.  After all, sperm can of course impregnate a man through the anus and settle in the testes, resulting in a pregnancy.

Wrong.  The true reason, and like I said this is something that students of medicine, psychology, and any of the social sciences learn in the first semester of introductory Psychology, is the old one.

r-- is always about subjugating someone.  It is not about sex, it is not about reproduction.  Only thing is that now when these "evolutionary psychologists" rearrange their prejudices, they just say that when the victim is a woman and there is a very specific set of characteristics that the crime must follow a pattern of, she happens to run the risk of becoming pregnant.

I've got more examples of why this premise is one hundred percent false.

We see this with dogs.  Dogs hump other dogs, dogs hump humans, male dogs hump other male dogs.  This is to establish dominance.  A male dog does not care that it cannot get another male dog pregnant, and that's not the point anyway.  The point of this activity is to humiliate the um, receiving dog, to basically (forgive me) hump it into submission.  a dog can also identify members of its own species.  A dog will not hump a human trying to get it pregnant.  A dog does this to exert power over the human.  Simply because dogs do this the wrong way and therefore it does not risk resulting in a pregnancy, we laugh about it.

We see this with chickens on a farm.  A group of chickens will quickly establish a pecking order.  This is about dominance and hierarchy in the social group.  This is true with numerous animals that live in any sort of social group.

Suppose a woman turns down a date.  Then suppose the sick individual sneaks after her, follows her home, and what is his mindset?  Is he thinking, yay i really have to make sure she gets pregnant because this might be my last chance to sire a child.  Or as is most likely the case

We see this from the few r-ists that do get caught and sent to jail.  The sick individual at the time he committed the crime was in fact thinking__

We see this in male prisons.  According to evolutionary psychologists, r-- is due to evolution and reproduction, after all.  Really?  So prison rapes occur because the r-ist is hoping that he will somehow manage to impregnate the victim's rectum?

It is time to face the facts, evolutionary psychologists.  Your chosen discipline, as it were, is a joke.  It has been debunked.  It is about domineering over someone.  Rest now.  The argument has been settled.

The good of the whole entire society must take precedence over a supposed "right" of any one individual to reproduce.  Ants and bees, other social insects.  They work together as a cohesive team.  Sure it's all instinct and they don't make the conscious decision to do it, but the fact remains that they do what is best for the whole society.  None of this individual-assaults-and-dominates-another-member-of-society-to-its-own-ends crap.  No individual ant has the right to upend any other individual in hopes of getting its own agenda ahead.  And r-- most certainly is not justified in the light of evolution.  r-- is a selfish, cruel, vile act that completely violates any right to sense of self, any bodily autonomy of the victim.

Even out in the wild, a female will only allow a male to mount her when she is in heat -- a specific season of the year.  Any other time, the males can forget it.

What is the core reason that r-- is considered an evolutionary advantage?  Is it because this would physically produce a child?  Well, hell, anyone that has read my past essays would realize how much of a ludicrous, trifling argument that is.  For example, if physical presence is the only criterion for evolution, it is well-known that elephants, lions, tigers, and bears, not to mention a large portion of the menagerie of the primate order, are much more physically gifted than humans.  Perhaps we humans should just step down with our puny teeth and soft fingernails, and allow these animals dominion over us.

*****I have recently been astonished, my jaw hit the floor, but then it snapped back up in a huge smile of vindication and relief.

You cannot imagine the immense relief I felt when I learned that actual scientists, i.e., those that study the critical sciences, math, engineering, and technology, do not take the "evolutionary psychologists" seriously at all.  Very interesting.  So these so called free-thinkers are not even respected within the field they think they invented.