Males and Females

[waif]

I have a date tomorrow with a girl that I've been chatting with constantly and think is really cool. She gets almost all my obscure references, started reading the Malazan Book of the Fallen with minimal prompting, and hasn't been creeped out by awkward sexual innuendo or my repeatedly drunkenly texting her death metal lyrics in all caps. Pretty excited, getting drinks with her tomorrow.

This happened. I think she's a keeper. We drank cool beers, swapped stories, talked about dork stuff, I brought her home, we did the horizontal polka, and today we hung out, watched Trailer Park Boys and cuddled.

 

[KafkaX]

 

[Draehl]

Alternatively, a person who goes all "free-fucking bonobos" has a better chance of producing a large variety of offspring, thus increasing the odds that they will be better equipped to survive and ensuring the continuation of the parents' lineage.

Now, it is true that children fare better if they have a parent that sticks around to raise them; but the other evolutionary behavior is to plant as many seeds in as many different kinds of mate as you can. The chances are that at least some of them will survive.



It's a mistake, of course, to believe that "raising well" leads to the institution of marriage, or that marriage and proper grooming are the direct result of some kind of superior evolutionary behavior. Marriage is a product of patriarchy, nothing more; and the value of monogamy follows from this. It has nothing to do with evolutionary behavior witnessed in other species.

In contrast to the false equation given above, it is actually the institution of marriage itself - a socioeconomic model instituted by those in positions of power in order to procure the most viable and fertile mates - that constructs our notions of what it means to "raise well." And this is merely for the purpose of perpetuating the patriarchy. It is entirely possible, in another set of environmental, cultural, or evolutionary conditions, that raising well means instilling in one's children the propensity for impregnating as many mates as possible.

Sadly, we're beyond natural selection and true evolutionary behavior. Modern society prohibits natural selection from taking place. Those truly most fit within the context of modern society are having no or fewer children. Those least fit are seemingly those who reproduce the most. We're almost anti-evolutionary at this point. That being said *society* will continue to advance off shared accomplishments and breakthroughs, but individuals humans will at worst degrade and at best not advance. Of course barring some massive event that changes the criteria of success (society being mostly wiped out or a group diverging from humanity at large- IE colonization of another planet)

Anywho.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

OK Joe Rogan, that's good pot talk but nothing you said is even close to making sense.

 

[Einherjar86]

Sadly, we're beyond natural selection and true evolutionary behavior.

This assumes that technology, industry, biogenetics, etc. aren't evolutionary adaptations in their own right. Natural selection doesn't disappear when humans start augmenting their bodies, programming their genes, or accepting welfare checks.

 

[Master_Yoda77]

Anyone else want to do despicable things to Rose Leslie?

 

[Manic Ferocity]

Yes.

 

[Funerary_Doom]

I use to be acquaintances with this particular national socialist who swore up and down people were devolving and the only way to kickstart evolution again is to pair each type of race with their respective types (like within white race there were different types of white like Dinarics, Nordic,etc so the Dinarics should only breed with Dinarics etc) and become more isolated to "fully evolve" the traits that were once more prominent. Sounded like a chalk full of do-do to me. And he despised globalization and technology and essentially blamed them for miscegenation, which led (or is leading to) devolution. Who knows, who cares. You live then you die-- it really shouldn't be that deep. It just reminded me of that simply because he stated the same thing. That people who are more intelligent or most fit aren't breeding. It all depends because a guy like Stephen Hawking who is incredibly intelligent and significant, but he is has ALS and is almost entirely paralyzed and ultimately depends on the support of others. It's just not right to judge/determine people's value objectively, as every case is totally different and it's just not a good way to look at people...

I actually have a dilemma. I actually got pretty close to someone i've been friends with for not too long, and this friend knowing the situation of me just having gotten out of a relationship but still on the fence with going back into it is being pretty forward with wanting a relationship with me. He doesn't like that I drink and hangout and always complains that I have too many people to talk to and that I drink too much (which really isn't true). I mean if I can't bring him around my friends and having him act normal and not judgmental, i suppose that's a red flag right? Moreoever, I still really like my ex… and maybe i should just wait until shit gets better. Who the fuck knows.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

That guy sounds unbearably idiotic. Do ultra specific National Socialists like that realize that they're vouching for a population of inbreds? Think about it...

That reminds me of a non-verbal client I take care of who has severe autism and is able to do advanced calculus. Just because someone is low-functioning in ways that prevent them from taking care of themselves doesn't mean that they can't have major talents under the surface. Judging someone based on their "usefulness" is not only ignorant, but impossible.

Ditch that guy. Sounds very controlling.

 

[Master_Yoda77]

Yes.

Mah Niggah

 

[tagradh]

I use to be acquaintances with this particular national socialist who swore up and down people were devolving and the only way to kickstart evolution again is to pair each type of race with their respective types (like within white race there were different types of white like Dinarics, Nordic,etc so the Dinarics should only breed with Dinarics etc) and become more isolated to "fully evolve" the traits that were once more prominent. Sounded like a chalk full of do-do to me.

I wonder how people like this cope with scientists and non-retarded people knowing that real benefits come with pairing humans with those most unlike them.

I bet inbreeding is far more common with people like this too.

Fucking morons.

My problem with them really isn't that their views are offensive or anything like that. It's that they're so fucking stupid and ignorant.

Cut their balls off. Smash their uteri.

 

[Draehl]

This assumes that technology, industry, biogenetics, etc. aren't evolutionary adaptations in their own right. Natural selection doesn't disappear when humans start augmenting their bodies, programming their genes, or accepting welfare checks.

You could argue society as a whole is evolving still, yes, my point was that simply that individual humans are not. Are corporations and rare super-geniuses our new evolutionary behavior? Perhaps.

 

[The Ozzman]

Anyone else want to do despicable things to Rose Leslie?

I don't. I want to buy her dinner and then play Scrabble with her.

 

[Dak]

Alternatively, a person who goes all "free-fucking bonobos" has a better chance of producing a large variety of offspring, thus increasing the odds that they will be better equipped to survive and ensuring the continuation of the parents' lineage.

Now, it is true that children fare better if they have a parent that sticks around to raise them; but the other evolutionary behavior is to plant as many seeds in as many different kinds of mate as you can. The chances are that at least some of them will survive.

Correlations of environment with r vs K selection note that r-selection, regardless of whether in humans or animals, is a reproduction strategy associated with a nasty brutish life. How much one influences the other is uncertain, the correlations certainly don't go the other way, and you must have correlation to even think about causation. That is enough to make my point, and have it stand up to "what ifs".

It's a mistake, of course, to believe that "raising well" leads to the institution of marriage, or that marriage and proper grooming are the direct result of some kind of superior evolutionary behavior.

Marriage, in humans, supports K selection trends. Now forget marriage in terms of pieces of paper from institutions. I'm talking about parents living/working together to raise biological offspring, and I'm not even leaving out extended family support.

Marriage is a product of patriarchy, nothing more; and the value of monogamy follows from this.

It is entirely possible, in another set of environmental, cultural, or evolutionary conditions, that raising well means instilling in one's children the propensity for impregnating as many mates as possible.

The point is that that strategy doesn't require "raising" though. r selection is the natural propensity given certain environmental conditions, and corresponds with not being raised, or at least "well". IE, absentee parenting, low life expectancy, etc.

Now before one wants to argue that "r/K" is out of style for purely predictive purposes, I know that it's not the model for prediction. Such selection strategies are environmentally responsive trends rather than innate or fixed descriptors.

 

[Einherjar86]

Correlations of environment with r vs K selection note that r-selection, regardless of whether in humans or animals, is a reproduction strategy associated with a nasty brutish life. How much one influences the other is uncertain, the correlations certainly don't go the other way, and you must have correlation to even think about causation. That is enough to make my point, and have it stand up to "what ifs".

Or simply an evolutionary advantage that works. Nasty and brutish are human descriptors, thus automatically implying that we shouldn't want that; but there's no reason why it can't work perfectly well for other species, and not limiting this to animals. Sunflowers don't have a particularly nasty or brutish life.

Marriage, in humans, supports K selection trends. Now forget marriage in terms of pieces of paper from institutions. I'm talking about parents living/working together to raise biological offspring, and I'm not even leaving out extended family support.

And this very institution is what goes on to create the conditions that in turn influence the values of family support and monogamy.

I'm not saying it doesn't work, I'm just saying that values can't precede the institution itself. The material conditions give rise to those values.

It's true. Marriage, as a social institution, is economic in origin. As a means of purchasing, or proclaiming some type of ownership over a female, males guaranteed their sexual access to a fertile mate, thus ensuring the perpetuation of their lineage. We don't recognize this today because marriage has adapted to accommodate new values; but if we follow it back through history, we find that marriage is an institution of sexual access.

The point is that that strategy doesn't require "raising" though. r selection is the natural propensity given certain environmental conditions, and corresponds with not being raised, or at least "well". IE, absentee parenting, low life expectancy, etc.

And my point is that if you truly are a proponent of "contingency" then you would admit that marriage is a purely arbitrary means of pursuing sexual reproduction. There's nothing qualitatively better about marriage, or monogamy, in and of itself. It's a evolutionary-cultural artifact, not a pre-programmed instinct. There are an infinite number of possible environmental conditions, so qualifying a certain combination of factors as "nasty and brutish" isn't absolute by any means.

 

[KafkaX]

Is anyone else really reading this shit?

Lets get back to slam pieces, rating Jimmy's bombshells and relationship updates.

Im taking a break from dating for a little bit. Too much drama in my life has been happening with women and I want to take a step back and get a fuckin breather.

 

[waif]

Yeah seriously I'm fucking bitches left and right here and y'all are too busy wearing out your keyboards to give me a god damn high five

 

[Krow]

Ein and Dak arguing is brutal reading material. *scroll scroll scroll*

Anyone else just not have much interest in sex lately?
Moved into my own place, let my freeloading girlfriend move in, we fuck every night but Jesus Christ I couldn't give a shit if we did or not.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I actually enjoy Dak and Ein convos. The contrast is interesting

 

[Einherjar86]

Ein and Dak arguing is brutal reading material. *scroll scroll scroll*

I'm going to take this as a serious fucking compliment!

I don't care about any of the weirdo opinions on this thread. Tatiana Maslany is all I care about, and probably all I will continue to post: