Internet Pornography

[Felasco]

You are correct in your opinion that males and females are different genetically. They are not only different physically, but they actually think differently. And yes, these differences can be seen in, and are comparable to, our animal ancestors. But where you get lost is in your assumption that girls are good and boys are bad. That is bullshit.

I didn't say girls are good and boys are bad. I'm not attempting to moralize or declare what is right or wrong, or what gender roles should be. I'm just trying to understand and articulate what is.

You state that the males fight for the right to fuck the best female, but you fail to realize that the females do the same thing. Do you think that the female gorillas stand around in their pretty dresses saying, "Oh me, oh my, I hope that I get the handsome one." No. They beat the shit out of any female who thinks that they have a stronger right to choose a mate. Females also want to fight and fuck.

Pretty dress competition, yes. Beat the shit out of competitors, no.

This is an easy one. Turn on your TV. Watch the news. Who is doing 95%+ of the violence being reported?

Women are different from men, that does not make them better or worse, just different.

I agree. Male and female are a system.

To interpret men and women as good and bad is foolish, and guarantees that one has lost the ability to actually understand men and women.

You're reading in to my posts that which you wish to argue against. Could be sloppy writing on my part too.

I also agree that there has been too much change too fast, and we have not caught up.

Yes, that's the real story. The whole thing is being driven by an explosion of knowledge, ie. it no longer takes a strong back to be a good breadwinner.

It is my personal belief that the rational mind is the greatest liar in the world, and the enemy that philosophy was created to counter.

Good one!

When a woman becomes pregnant, her attention is consumed by her baby. When she delivers, this does not change for a good six months.

It never really changes. Once they have a baby, things are changed forever. Mission accomplished. The guy will never really be #1 again.

3. The lie (emotional) that men are powerful and women are weak. This is simply not true.

Agreed. It's the opposite.

Chaz, I worked in law for many years, and find your advice to your son to be very wise, at least in these times.

Nah. Life is very very short. There's no time for waiting around for things to be fixed, cause they ain't never gonna be fixed. Life has always been hard, and probably always will be in one way or another.

[Gee]

I didn't say girls are good and boys are bad. I'm not attempting to moralize or declare what is right or wrong, or what gender roles should be. I'm just trying to understand and articulate what is.

I apologize. You did not state that girls are good and boys are bad. But you did state that women were more sophisticated, and that they were superior, and that men were stupid. And then below you imply that men are weak. So it does not look as though you have a balanced view of the genders.

3. The lie (emotional) that men are powerful and women are weak. This is simply not true.

Agreed. It's the opposite.

Gee

[reasonvemotion]

The lie (emotional) that men are powerful and women are weak. This is simply not true. Men are physically stronger in most ways, but that is not power. If a man falls into a well, most will laugh and ask if he was drunk; but if a baby falls into a well, the world stops and waits for its salvation. That is power!

This is, extremely interesting. As I recall C.W., Felasco and the writer of the above are all declared believers of Darwin and evolution. The above is in direct contrast to anything Darwin has written. An example of Darwin's opinion of the female sex.

One reason nineteenth century biologists argued for women's inferiority was because Darwin believed that "unchecked female militancy threatened to produce a perturbance of the races" and to "divert the orderly process of evolution" (Fee, 1979:415).

Darwin taught that human sex differences were due partly to sexual selection, specifically because men must prove themselves physically and intellectually superior to other men in the competition for women, whereas women must be superior primarily in sexual attraction.

Other examples Darwin uses to illustrate his conclusion that evolutionary forces caused men to be superior to women included animal comparisons. Since humans evolved from animals, and "no one disputes that the bull differs in disposition from the cow, the wild-boar from the sow, the stallion from the mare, and, as is well known through the keepers of menageries, the males of the larger apes from the females," the same must be true with human females (Darwin, 1896:563). Further, some of the traits of women "are characteristic of the lower races, and anti therefore of a past and lower state of civilization" (1896:563,564).

My conclusion is either your belief in Darwin/evolution is conditional, or your statement "women are the more powerful sex", (a description of what you mean by "powerful" would be helpful) could be substantiated with some factual evidence .

[Felasco]

But you did state that women were more sophisticated, and that they were superior, and that men were stupid. And then below you imply that men are weak. So it does not look as though you have a balanced view of the genders.

Correct, I don't have a balanced view of the genders. I would agree my views are hopelessly sexist.

I do think women are on average smarter, stronger and more sophisticated, but that's not a moral judgment. I don't credit women for this, or blame men.

Though I would agree that due to sloppy writing on my part, and a stupid, weak, less sophisticated man style desire to make grandiose statements, it may have read that way.

As I've tried to express, I do think men may continue to perform an important function of brave/reckless exploration in to the next frontier, which I see as an emerging virtual reality.

I would agree with RE that probably lots of men will be destroyed in this exploration, as is usually the case. Think of all the ships that set out from Europe to explore the world's oceans a few centuries ago. Most of them never came back, the fatality rate for sailors during that period was huge.

But, exploration is a job that must be done, and only men are dumb enough to do it. So the next time we're visiting our favorite porn site, we can wear a sailor hat, and login as Magellan. Tally ho, raise the main sail!

[reasonvemotion]

Correct, I don't have a balanced view of the genders. I would agree my views are hopelessly sexist.

Are you a woman?

[Gee]

The lie (emotional) that men are powerful and women are weak. This is simply not true. Men are physically stronger in most ways, but that is not power. If a man falls into a well, most will laugh and ask if he was drunk; but if a baby falls into a well, the world stops and waits for its salvation. That is power!

This is, extremely interesting. As I recall C.W., Felasco and the writer of the above are all declared believers of Darwin and evolution. The above is in direct contrast to anything Darwin has written. An example of Darwin's opinion of the female sex.

ReasonvEmotion;

We have already had this conversation. I advised you to not try to put my thinking into a box. Remember? Last time, I believe it was Catholicism. If you want to know what I believe, then ask me. I think that Darwin was brilliant, but evolution answers only some questions, not all. His theory is just that, a theory. Some of it is good, some of it is ridiculous.

One reason nineteenth century biologists argued for women's inferiority was because Darwin believed that "unchecked female militancy threatened to produce a perturbance of the races" and to "divert the orderly process of evolution" (Fee, 1979:415).

Well, I do not agree with this, but I can see his point. There is a reason for the idea that it is a "man's world", and that reason has nothing to do with "superiority" or "inferiority", it has to do with the way men think. I do not think that "unchecked female militancy" threatens races or evolution, but it can make a mess out of a society/culture.

Darwin taught that human sex differences were due partly to sexual selection, specifically because men must prove themselves physically and intellectually superior to other men in the competition for women, whereas women must be superior primarily in sexual attraction.

What can I say? The man was a sexist. We all have our flaws.

Other examples Darwin uses to illustrate his conclusion that evolutionary forces caused men to be superior to women included animal comparisons. Since humans evolved from animals, and "no one disputes that the bull differs in disposition from the cow, the wild-boar from the sow, the stallion from the mare, and, as is well known through the keepers of menageries, the males of the larger apes from the females," the same must be true with human females (Darwin, 1896:563). Further, some of the traits of women "are characteristic of the lower races, and anti therefore of a past and lower state of civilization" (1896:563,564).

And some of the traits of men "are characteristic of the lower races, and anti therefore of a past and lower state of civilization". So what?

My conclusion is either your belief in Darwin/evolution is conditional, or your statement "women are the more powerful sex", (a description of what you mean by "powerful" would be helpful) could be substantiated with some factual evidence .

Where is it that you think I stated that, "women are the more powerful sex"?

Gee

[chaz wyman]

Squirrels don't get married, they don't need education. They don't form into large scale societies, and don't kill each other with WDM. They don't listen to music, write poetry, nor do they exchange knowledge about their world to their children. Their lives do not change from generation to generation and their progress and change is pretty much at the mercy of differential survival rates, in a changing environment. Squirrels do not modify their environment. They do not plan ahead any differently from what their genes have programmed them to do, and this remains unchanged for a million years. They are not good at ad hoc adaptation.

None of this has anything to do with gender roles....

`It has everything to do with gender roles. It's called culture, and we get all out concepts of gender, and normative instructions from our culture. If we got them from our genes then we would all act the same, like squirrels - WE DON"T.

[chaz wyman]

The lie (emotional) that men are powerful and women are weak. This is simply not true. Men are physically stronger in most ways, but that is not power. If a man falls into a well, most will laugh and ask if he was drunk; but if a baby falls into a well, the world stops and waits for its salvation. That is power!

This is, extremely interesting. As I recall C.W., Felasco and the writer of the above are all declared believers of Darwin and evolution. The above is in direct contrast to anything Darwin has written. An example of Darwin's opinion of the female sex.

One reason nineteenth century biologists argued for women's inferiority was because Darwin believed that "unchecked female militancy threatened to produce a perturbance of the races" and to "divert the orderly process of evolution" (Fee, 1979:415).

Darwin taught that human sex differences were due partly to sexual selection, specifically because men must prove themselves physically and intellectually superior to other men in the competition for women, whereas women must be superior primarily in sexual attraction.

Other examples Darwin uses to illustrate his conclusion that evolutionary forces caused men to be superior to women included animal comparisons. Since humans evolved from animals, and "no one disputes that the bull differs in disposition from the cow, the wild-boar from the sow, the stallion from the mare, and, as is well known through the keepers of menageries, the males of the larger apes from the females," the same must be true with human females (Darwin, 1896:563). Further, some of the traits of women "are characteristic of the lower races, and anti therefore of a past and lower state of civilization" (1896:563,564).

My conclusion is either your belief in Darwin/evolution is conditional, or your statement "women are the more powerful sex", (a description of what you mean by "powerful" would be helpful) could be substantiated with some factual evidence .

There are two problems here.
The first is the one you share with Fiasco and that is to assume that human gender roles are wholly determined by somatic evolution. A moment's thought will tell you that is nonsense.

The other problem is that you seem to be quoting from a second hand source for Darwin. This means two things. One is that you have no understanding of evolution, and that, two, you are misrepresenting what Darwin is actually saying.
Darwin had given up writing on this topic by 1896, on account of the fact THAT HE HAS BEEN DEAD 14 years already.

I would ask you what book you got it from by I know you don't have a clue.
Is it a re-print of Origins or the Decent of Man ?

Maybe you are just making it up as you go along? As the EXACT phrases do not exist in ANY work by Darwin, I will assume you are just stupid.

I am not a "beleiver" in Darwin or evolution - it is not a religion.

[chaz wyman]

Hi all;

Chaz, I worked in law for many years, and find your advice to your son to be very wise, at least in these times.

Another rant by, Gee

Thanks, this advice simply underlines the need to understand gender roles through culture. That include law, and social arrangements for child care.

Trying to understand these things via some some undigested naturalistic fallacy based on Darwin is not going to help this discussion, not help the way we live our lives. We have put our genes aside for the most part.

There is no catching up to do. We have what we have. There will always be a tension between generational changes in social change, and the expectations that differ from young to old, and man to woman. There is not stable, normal, equilibrium in societies with personal freedom, and only the veneer of stability in those without.
Change is the only constant.

[reasonvemotion]

The lie (emotional) that men are powerful and women are weak.

Weak is another word for the meaning powerless, which you have refuted in the case of women.

How else would one interpret this? Are you not suggesting that women are the stronger sex.

[Felasco]

Are you a woman?

I have hair half way down my back. Does that count?

However, those are my only qualifications, so I guess I don't make the grade.

[Felasco]

If we got them from our genes then we would all act the same, like squirrels - WE DON"T.

We overwhelmingly do act the same. For thousands of years, all over the world, gender roles in humans have been remarkably similar to gender roles in squirrels and other mammals. The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence denies the point you're trying to make, but you can't see it because....

You and I are acting just like male squirrels right now. We're competing, battling, testing each other's strength etc. Except that we aren't as bright as squirrels, because neither of us are going to get laid, no matter who wins this competitive squabble fest.

This thread is about internet porn, a perfect example of a longstanding natural order trying to re-establish itself. Recent culture has decided men should be something other than the classic male gender role, and so men in great numbers are migrating to an environment where they can still be men, at least inside of their heads.

[chaz wyman]

If we got them from our genes then we would all act the same, like squirrels - WE DON"T.

We overwhelmingly do act the same.

This thread is about internet porn, a perfect example of a longstanding natural order trying to re-establish itself.

You are ignorant of the vast diversity of human history and human culture. There never has been, nor ever will there will be a "natural order" to human life. You are not only a fool but a damn fool.

[Felasco]

You are ignorant of the vast diversity of human history and human culture.

Please share with us accounts of cultures where men had and raised the babies, while women fought with other women in order to weed out the weak genes.

You are not only a fool but a damn fool.

Good job, this is obviously true, or I wouldn't be talking with you.

[reasonvemotion]

I have hair half way down my back. Does that count?

Ha.....I guess that explains your ability to be able think like a woman/man.