Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amen-Moses · 11-10-2002, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
Probably, unless we were instinctually driven to do so.

What the entire sexual process does is promote procreation with the most favorable mate. We are attacted, as males, to women who have... um... attributes... which lead us to believe they will be able to give birth to and nurture a child. Women are attracted to men who appear to have the resources to care for that child (whether that be wide shoulders or a big fat checkbook). So the whole thing in concert, sexual organs, physical attraction linked to attributes that signify the ability to nurture young, works to promote reproduction with the most viable parents.

Almost sounds like it was designed, don't it?

Only if you don't look too closely! Women indeed look for a "total package" but may make do with a compromise situation, i.e one man to play house mate and one or two others to procreate with. (in a study carried out across British maternity units using blood samples found that 1 in 4.5 children born to monogamous couples were unrelated to the male partner)

Men on the other hand will basically fuck anything that smells right!

Amen-Moses

11-10-2002, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amen-Moses:
Does this also mean that without the pleasure aspect we wouldn't bother to procreate?

Amen-Moses

The drive is an animal instinct (we are the animal man first) and the pleasure is a social factor. This can be both an advantage and a disadvantage. It is ego building and therefore adds to the formation of our masculinity.

There are other ways to enhance our masculinity and so our sexual pleasure is not the only one. Studies done at Berkely (and all over) will confirm that rough-tough tumbling sports are good for this and so are physical exercizes.

11-10-2002, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amen-Moses:


Men on the other hand will basically fuck anything that smells right!

Amen-Moses

That is really a tragedy because we should not be a slave to our cock (as they would say here).

Maybe you key word here is "smell right" in the figurative sense of the word. I hope so.

luvluv · 11-10-2002, 12:16 PM

Amen-moses:

Quote:

Only if you don't look too closely! Women indeed look for a "total package" but may make do with a compromise situation, i.e one man to play house mate and one or two others to procreate with. (in a study carried out across British maternity units using blood samples found that 1 in 4.5 children born to monogamous couples were unrelated to the male partner)

I'm sure that happens quite often Amen-moses but how often is that the "plan"? Most women don't say "Hmmm... I like this guys house and car but I like this man's genetic material." Most women would probably prefer to have the children of their housemate, even if they want to have sex with other men they would probably rarely DECIDE to have the other man's child as opposed to the housemate's child. It just might end up that way sometimes.

Amen-Moses · 11-10-2002, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos:


That is really a tragedy because we should not be a slave to our cock (as they would say here).

Maybe you key word here is "smell right" in the figurative sense of the word. I hope so.

Men who lose their sense of smell also typically lose their sex drive, make of that what you will.

Amen-Moses

11-10-2002, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amen-Moses:


Men who lose their sense of smell also typically lose their sex drive . . .
Amen-Moses

. . . and will just hang out as nymphs neutered by the modern gender society. I agree. Do you think that is going to get worse before it gets better? I hope not.

11-10-2002, 06:38 PM

Quote:

The problem we face today, as I see it, is the sexual liberty enjoyed by the masses. Whereas before only small portion of the social elect were troubled with infertility we now find that a significant part of the masses are. Before it allowed for a turn over of the rich while now it paves the way for a turn over of a major part of a civilization (the educated masses).

I have no problem stating my case but will not look for scientific evidence.

Well as long as this is the case I don't see the point of further argument with you. Even if you are correct about trends in infertility, the mere correlation of two events never proves causality. If you don't understand that there will be no reasoning with you. You will also be extremely handicapped in your ability to assess any other topic without being hindered by your prejudices.

<a href="http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical+fallacy/Correlation+implies+causation" target="_blank">Here's a link</a>.

Ms. Siv · 11-10-2002, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by galiel:
The above is not exactly true. Um, not even remotely true. The above is merely theist dogma. I now return you to your regularly scheduled madness.

Thanks. I started off treating that as a rational response and then realised that it wasn't

- S.

11-10-2002, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jagged Little Pill:


Well as long as this is the case I don't see the point of further argument with you. Even if you are correct about trends in infertility, the mere correlation of two events never proves causality. If you don't understand that there will be no reasoning with you. You will also be extremely handicapped in your ability to assess any other topic without being hindered by your prejudices.

<a href="http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical+fallacy/Correlation+implies+causation" target="_blank">Here's a link</a>.

OK, that is like the smoking correlation with lung cancer. Right and soon it will cause of breast cancer too because they haven't figured that one out yet. Or maybe that would be taking things too far.

I understand very well and find it interesting to see how social sciences prove to be a least one generation behind in a deterministic world.

11-10-2002, 08:41 PM

It's true that smoking and lung cancer are correlated, but causality between them has also been PROVEN scientifically.

You, on the other hand, offer no proof of causality for your hypothesis.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-10-2002, 08:41 PM	#70
Jagged Guest Posts: n/a	It's true that smoking and lung cancer are correlated, but causality between them has also been PROVEN scientifically. You, on the other hand, offer no proof of causality for your hypothesis.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.