The Amoral Wasteland?

[Rollo Tomassi]

Originally posted by Alicorn
That's ridiculous.

There is nothing in human evolution or biology that should make the Catholic Schoolgirl Uniform so sexually appealing to me. Plaid pleated skirts had no survival value against a tiger and does not aid in reproduction in any way. Yet I find my behavior towards them rather sexual.

Certainly some parts of our sexual response biological, but other parts are learned too.

:cheer: for schoolgirls.

Not ridiculous at all really and quite explainable. Your school girl uniform represents a virginic ideal and the prospect of having sexual intercourse with a young, nubile and unspoiled female is thus a paramount fantasy not only for reproductive purposes, but also prime sexual experience. It's not the outfit itself, but the idealization that it represents. Certainly there is a nurture (i.e. learned) aspect to sexuality, but a grossly overweight girl or extremely elderly woman wearing a Catholic school girl's uniform would not have the same arousal potential as Britney Spear dancing around in the same outfit.
Understand?

 

[Alicorn]

Originally posted by Rollo Tomassi
Not ridiculous at all really and quite explainable.

It's ridiculous because he tried to explain human sexuality in purely biological terms without reference to any kind of social or psychological....

Oh why do I fvcking bother trying to explain myself 50 million fvcking times.

Originally posted by Rollo Tomassi
Your school girl uniform represents a virginic ideal and the prospect of having sexual intercourse with a young, nubile and unspoiled female is thus a paramount fantasy not only for reproductive purposes, but also prime sexual experience. It's not the outfit itself, but the idealization that it represents.

The only way you could know this is if you could read my mind, which you can't. Maybe that's what it means TO YOU but there is no way you could know what it means to me, unless I told you; which I haven’t.

Originally posted by Rollo Tomassi
Certainly there is a nurture (i.e. learned) aspect to sexuality, but a grossly overweight girl or extremely elderly woman wearing a Catholic school girl's uniform would not have the same arousal potential as Britney Spear dancing around in the same outfit.
Understand?

You dumb fvck this is exactly what I was saying if you bothered to try to even read my fvcking post. Jesus fvcking Christ, how many of you retards on the Internet can’t read / comprehend?

Wipe the drool off your chin. Understand?

 

[TrickyD]

Excellent!

Excellent post Sazuki... This is why I still like this site -- some deep thinkers still exist out there!

 

[Evan_M]

Car analogy...

Sazuki made an excellent post.

To elaborate upon another analogy, not quite as deep, as a culture we have a tendancy to treat relationships like we do cars.

Many people trade up their car every few years for the same reasons they do relationships: Too many miles, boring, want something different, faster more luxurious etc. Not everyone does this but I believe a lot do. I think you can kind of value how someone views relationships by the car they drive. I'm more practical. I buy a car for a long term commitment. I take decent care of it but don't baby it. Honestly, I'm looking for something similiar in a relationship. Long term, low maintenance. You would think it wouldn't be that difficult. Society unfortunately has shown us otherwise. Women have been suckered that they need a new car every few years.

 

[phoneproblems]

I'm gonna save this great deep thread from the shallow diversion brought upon it by the high school chump (I feel your pain, son, but wrong forum, wrong thread)

We have explored why all of these cheating behaviors are out there. Perhaps genes. Perhaps behaviorism. Perhaps the need for that new car smell again. Etc.

And we all agree 99% of the women will cheat sooner or later. And that men can do something to change this.

So my q. is: Why is there morality at all? Why do we insist on believing there is some right or wrong?

It seems like such systems are self serving. We make it amoral for a woman to cheat b/c we want to keep her in our bed serving our needs raising our kids, etc.

The AFC's awakening is to realize the system that he believed in, the rules he played by, were wrong wrong wrong. There is no morality. That is an illusion made by men to comfort them in a Hobbesian world -- and try to control that world.

So we become DJ's when we look not to the world as we thought it would be (a romantic outlook), not to the world as it ought to be (a moral outlook), but to the world as it actually is (a pragmatic outlook).

In this case, why do we need these morals? If we want a woman not to cheat, we know the way to manage her with DJ techniques to maintain her interest. We also know the risk she will and the ways to minimize the impact on us. Why not just dispense with morality here altogether and live freely in reality instead? Wouldn't that be a lot less disappointment and heartache?

 

[Maverick001]

Rollo,

To continue on with this thread:

MAVERICK: I can see by your response that you subscribe to the cognitive-humanist approach towards human pyschology, and while I can certainly respect the aspirations of the nobler prospects of this approach, overall it's a bit pollyanish to nuts & bolts behaviorists such as myself. That's not intended as a flame, it's just an observation, but to support this let me respond to what you've posted here.

I certainly have an interest in such matters but no formal education in human psychology and so I don't subscribe to any approaches because I don't know what the differing schools of thought espouse. Knowing myself, I would probably agree with elements from all approaches and synthesize a view of my own.

I prefer the term quixiotic over pollyannaish in this context but I understand what you're saying.

Don't worry about flaming; I know that you're response isn't a flame. In fact, anyone and everyone on the board can call me out on anything I say. I have no problem with differing opinions.

From the humanist perspective you have to follow a linear, chronological advance in human understanding in many different realms - math, art, cultural ritual, science, societal conditions and any number of other 'advances' you mentioned that we've made from our hunter gatherer, tribalistic beginnings to our globally connected present. And while it is very enobling and self-satisfying to see such achievements as evidence of our progress, it's far too easy to overllook the root motivations for these advances that are anchored in the very evolution that the humanist perspective would like to claim triumph over.

I don't believe that our present state of human development has "exorcised" our primitive past and I say that in quotes deliberately because it's not something that we should lose. So called negative traits like aggression, lust, jealousy, etc. all have their place and purpose when used for positive effect and ends. What those are is best left to the individual to decide.

Again, that's been the crux of my postings in this thread. Choice.

Everyone, everyday is faced with choosing between what's right and what's easy. Choose wisely because your life and the lives of others will be affected.

Snipped quote about Picasso, etc.

Perhaps it is both intellectual and biological. What did Picasso and Benjamin Franklin have to say about their own motivations? Only they know. The rest of us can only speculate about the facts of their lives and so no one view holds greater truth above other views.

The self-actualized man still finds himself aroused by the Playboy Playmate irrespective of how much he convinces himself he should reserve his 'feelings' for his wife or girlfriend to conform to societal convention. Powerful establishing operations such as deprivation virtually ensure that he will have an 'inner conflict' and to remedy this he will behaviorally condition himself to act accordingly. Regardless of the method, it's still the biological root that has been hardwired into his head millenia ago by his hunting ancestors. Whether or not I act on an opportunity to cheat on my wife, the base desire is still present and an undeniable motivation. A wife can close her eyes and imagine she's fvcking Brad Pitt when she's with her husband - the motivation is still the same.

Nothing wrong with having any type of feelings or desires, it's what an individual does with them that defines who they are.

2/3rds of the American population is overweight, why do you suppose this is? According to the cognitive-humanist we've solved our hunting/gathering needs and can devote ourselves to 'higher pursuits', but yet statistics confound us here. The behaviorrist sees this and notices that our own evolutionary psychology predisposes us to over-eat since in our evolutionary past we didn't know whether or not we'd eat at all tomorrow or the next day (thus the 'gathering' was invented I suppose). Our bodies process this food in such a way that we burn fat far slower than carbohydrates and protien is reserved for muscle building. All of this in an evolutionarily efficient manner to preserve us, but now once we've (more or less) mastered our environment and food is convenient and plentiful it becomes a disadvantage. It's not right or wrong, it's just our innate biological mechanisms motivating us to behave in a manner that will benefit us best.

I think it stems from laziness and a sense of entitlement to live in a way that's gluttonous because there is a sense and expectation that there will always be a fix available. Why put the effort into eating sensibly and exercising when you can just get liposuction? Other industrialised countries are not experiencing the burgeoning problem of an overweight populace in the manner that the U.S. is.

Every vice you can point a negative finger at opperates in precisely in ths dynamic. Our morality, our intelligence, our sexuality and the behaviors that are manifested by them are all motivated by this base. It would be a pleasant fiction if we could all remove our consciousness from this and be these enlightened, self-actualized beings, constantly operating in a state of peak experience, but this damn testosterone in my body keeps pulling me back down to earth.

The vice is only our own moral assignment.

I haven't and don't advocate a separation for what motivates the mind and the body. Both are necessary and required for the survival and growth of the other, and to also serve as a check and balance for each other. From my perspective, it's the individual's choice to heed the counsel of one over the other, but not to mutual exclusivity of one over the other.

The problem that moral realtivism poses to the humanist approach isn't so much a recognizing this primitive base motivation, but an unwillingness to embrace it and live with it and use it. I want to run, I want to fvck and I want to fight - I want to feel the blood, testosterone and adrenaline throbbing in my veins, I also want to write a sonata, paint a masterpiece and be a loving father to my daughter . Behaviorism is the antithesis of putting angels wings on our backs and claiming we've evolved 'above all of that.' I haven't, you haven't and no one has and our behaviors will make hypocrites of us whenever condition and opportunity facilitate it for us. It's not that behaviorism would have us all living like animals in the bush as an ideal state, nor does it deny that people have very enobling qualities; it simply accepts the whole of what prompts us to do what, why & how we do and explores the reasons why in a far more fundamental way than a romanticized humanism. I'm sure this is akin to atheism for people invested into humanism, but nothing could be further from the truth. It's simply a more pragmatic, efficeint and realistic approach for explaining behavior.

Again, I don't know enough about the humanist and behaviourism approaches to argue their merits and shortcomings. I would expect that both would have useful elements. I agree that it's not one or the other but both.

On Maslow
I'm quite familiar with Maslow actually and I should point out that all of the higher 'needs' in the pyramid necessitate that the lower base needs are met prior to actualization and more esoteric concerns (needs). I should also point out that the self analysis required to evaluate where a person is positioned in this hierarchy is still subject to his or her personal conditions. A lot of humanistic psychology relies heavily on this very subjective analysis. For instance when Carl Jung proposed that men enter a 'mid-life crisis' around 40 y.o. I wonder whether an Umbuti tribesman on the Serengheti would regret not having a Corvet by the time he reached 40? It's all conditional and relative.

I knew that you would be very familiar with Maslow because you're in the biz, so to speak. I think that personal development is both linear and parallel.


This is for all sosuavers:

As DJ's and DJ's in training, we set and aspire to higher standards to achieve superior results in all realms of life. That includes leading in moral and ethical conduct.

How can anyone here complain about how others are behaving when they can't or won't behave in ways that they expect of others? How many guys here whine about their girlfriends/wives/f#ck buddies, women in general, etc. cheating and engaging in conduct that's unacceptable to them?

If anyone has people in their life whose behaviour is displeasing and distasteful to them, then play by your rules and next those who aren't worthy of being on your team. You set the standard and the pace. Some will make the cut and some won't. Don't worry about it.

It's late and I don't know if the preceding even made any sense at all but there it is.

Cheers,
Mav

 

[Maverick001]

I'm gonna save this great deep thread from the shallow diversion brought upon it by the high school chump (I feel your pain, son, but wrong forum, wrong thread)

We have explored why all of these cheating behaviors are out there. Perhaps genes. Perhaps behaviorism. Perhaps the need for that new car smell again. Etc.

And we all agree 99% of the women will cheat sooner or later. And that men can do something to change this.

So my q. is: Why is there morality at all? Why do we insist on believing there is some right or wrong?

It seems like such systems are self serving. We make it amoral for a woman to cheat b/c we want to keep her in our bed serving our needs raising our kids, etc.

The AFC's awakening is to realize the system that he believed in, the rules he played by, were wrong wrong wrong. There is no morality. That is an illusion made by men to comfort them in a Hobbesian world -- and try to control that world.

So we become DJ's when we look not to the world as we thought it would be (a romantic outlook), not to the world as it ought to be (a moral outlook), but to the world as it actually is (a pragmatic outlook).

In this case, why do we need these morals? If we want a woman not to cheat, we know the way to manage her with DJ techniques to maintain her interest. We also know the risk she will and the ways to minimize the impact on us. Why not just dispense with morality here altogether and live freely in reality instead? Wouldn't that be a lot less disappointment and heartache?

Why do we need morals?!

We need morals, and ethical behaviour for that matter, so that society can function.

I don't want anyone skimping on cost and using inferior material when constructing an airplane wing, that could cause problems in flight resulting in injury or death.

I don't want the policeman pulling over a female motorist and then raping her.

I don't want to be cheated at the butcher's by paying for less meat than what I'm being charged for.

I don't want my girlfriend/wife/f#ck buddy to get drunk, drive and then get hurt or killed, or do the same to someone else.

Some serious examples and some not, to be sure, but the principle is the same. We need to rely on and trust others to do the right thing. That's why morals and ethical behaviour are necessary.

Just my 2 cents.

Cheers,
Mav

 

[Friendly Otter]

I have intellectually known about this nature of amorality for quite some time but it hasn’t been concrete, substantive, to me until fairly recently, about the past six months.

Most people are basically amoral, with a slight leaning toward the moral. This means, among other things, that they are easy to affect through mass media, though it is easier when the case you are making sounds moral to them.

Anyway: today they hear the doctrine of Feel-Good instead of the doctrine of Duty. Duty has otherwise been the dominant philosophical compass throughout history, but the Feel-Good philosophical compass appears and dominates in a civilization in decline. The reason is that it is an easy way to gain followers (or in a democracy, you might say voters). The Feel-Good compass is more appealing to women (because their instinct is to avoid conflict, and Duty means conflict with those who eschew their duty).

I think that is what you are detecting.


(A side-note for the few who have read enough to think of this as sounding Spenglerian: I am not a believer in Spengler's decline-is-inevitable theory, I think of my argument above as simple logic and not necessarily Spenglerian, and I would say that it holds water when you study history. The period of decline for the Roman Empire for example.)

 

[xmlenigma]

That's ridiculous.

There is nothing in human evolution or biology that should make the Catholic Schoolgirl Uniform so sexually appealing to me. Plaid pleated skirts had no survival value against a tiger and does not aid in reproduction in any way. Yet I find my behavior towards them rather sexual.

Certainly some parts of our sexual response biological, but other parts are learned too.

:cheer: for schoolgirls.

That my friend is a learned behavior on top of a natural behavior.

You respond instinctively to women with a certain waist to hip ratio = good sex = good child bearing = good gene distribution

Society has taught you on top of that .. Strippers, Cheerleaders, Girls Gone Wild, College Girls are also = good sex... and so on.

 

[Friendly Otter]

First and foremost, one's culture and social environment can influence what you deem as attractive or not.

Beyond that, this has been dicussed before. You should read this about facial symmetry,Dr. Marquardt’s mask, and the Golden Ratio:

http://www.cosmeticsurgeryphil.com/beauty_research.htm




Source:http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/100best/storyB_story.html


You should also read this article on evolution and physical attractiveness:

http://www.human-evolution.org/genetic_physical_attraction.php



BTW, our evolutionary instincts are not perfect. Are you implying that each and every evolutionary instinct we have will never mislead us?

Maximus_Decimus

Excellent! I am always glad to see when someone else knows about Dr. Marquardt's studies on the Beauty Mask.

Here is a site that explains the Beauty Mask, made up by the Golden Cut 1.618, step by step, and you also get to see one of the unique qualities with the number 1.618: Beauty Analysis

 

[Friendly Otter]

That my friend is a learned behavior on top of a natural behavior.

You respond instinctively to women with a certain waist to hip ratio = good sex = good child bearing = good gene distribution

Society has taught you on top of that .. Strippers, Cheerleaders, Girls Gone Wild, College Girls are also = good sex... and so on.

I disagree, we are aroused by strippers, cheerleaders, and so on because they flaunt their stuff. They make us think of sex, and also they signal that they're easy prey. It is instinct, which has shaped these things in our society.

For any newcomer to the thread, I must recommend Rollo Tomassi's post #66 above, about the Catholic school girl uniform: it signals youth and the virginal. We instinctively want to sleep with virgins because they don't have another guy's seed in them, so it's a field ready for plowing and seeding, our mind tells us.

Man, evolutionary psychology is fascinating. For years I wondered if I'd ever learn the whole story about attractiveness, and Dr. Marquardt's research finally filled in the last blanks. He shows that even when beautiful women superficially seem to look different, like models from different races, we find that their facial symmetry in every case is close to the Beauty Mask.

 

[RedPill]

BUMP, because this is a damn good thread, and the discussion started in it is relevant to at least 4 other threads in this section right now.

 

[wayword]

I don't think that it would be fair to say that all women are amoral. If you can, try and read some of the letters Abigail Adams wrote. She was a bright woman who was aware of the political and moral issues of her day. Her husband, John Adams, was away in France during the Revolution leaving her alone for long periods of time, but it's my understanding that all children born in that marriage can be attributed to her husband.

I read the biography of John Adams and found the letters written between him and Abigail a bit shocking because this woman actually wrote letters that clearly showed she could think!

LMAO - so you have to go back 200 years to find a faithful, thinking woman?

Sorry, but I think you only support the reality that all post-female chauvinist American girls these days are deceitful OPPORTUNISTS with ZERO INTEGRITY OR CONSCIENCE. But everything is cyclical, and these same women are digging a deep hole for themselves that will eventually backfire as American men get COMPLETELY FED-UP with all their BS and DROP THE HAMMER.

 

[wayword]

Now...the stories of crazy relationships usually
happen like this...

1) Good boy meets baggage girl
2) Good boy falls for baggage girl
3) Good boy ignores all the warning side of baggage
girl's baggage because he's "so in love".
4) Good boy becomes engaged or married to baggage
girl.
5) All of baggage girl's emotional baggage begins
to spill out of her bag.
6) Good boy tries to "save" baggage girl...but ends
up getting screwed over as a result.
7) Good boy is now "baggage boy" thanks to baggage
girl.

Here's the bottom line: Relationships are ALREADY hard
enough to sustain with a "healthy" woman, so dating a woman
with a lot of emotional baggage is like ASKING FOR TROUBLE.
If you date or marry a woman who has been through too many
destructive or abusive relationships, it is NOT going to end
pretty. You're going to be in for a VERY tough ride.

I agree 100% with this...problem is, thanks to a generation of unbridled famale-chauvinism & child molestation, DAMN NEAR EVERY YOUNG GIRL IN THE USA IS A BAGGAGE GIRL, NOW!!!

 

[wayword]

This has happened for two reasons...

You're wrong. You forgot the 3 main reasons that prior to had stopped most women from cheating.

Fear of pregnancy - now eliminated with advent of the Pill in the 60s
Fear of STDs - widely eliminated with condoms
Fear of peer disapproval/bad "reputation" - Female chauvinism has now made s1uttiness cool (see Girls Gone Wild)

You see, it was never REALLY internal "moral integrity" that stopped women from cheating. It was external "hard" barrriers like these, that have now all been methodically removed.

 

[wayword]

in that in 10 minutes 5 guys were sending her texts at 2:00 in the morning finding out what she was doing.

Can really hot girls ever be faithful?

Maybe in nature, these prize trophies were the ones all the males wanted to knock-up, and to find the fittest one, she always let a bunch fight over and fvck her. The best man was then decided by whosever's sperm fertilized her egg. She purposely didn't make that final call, but let the competition itself (like American Idol).

 

[SXS]

Funny thing when the article talks about symmetry... Elvis face has symmetry ?

 

[edger]

like maybe he was realizing he had married a slvt, giving credence to the wisdom that gothic chicks are perhaps too easy.

"Easy" couldn't be farther from the truth when talking about gothic chicks. Trust me, I've been around A LOT of them to know. I hang out in the scene, although not as much as I used to, for this exact reason. Like SoCalMike pointed out, if you aren't in a band, aren't a DJ, Promoter, club owner, etc., good luck! They are very status orientated. My ex is like this. This is how the scenester chicks are. This is the exact reason I hunt elsewhere in the more "trendier" places. Since I'm not in a band right now, they've put me on the backburner.

 

[edger]

You should avoid any kind of scenester chicks (punks, rockabilly, etc.) like the plague. All they care about is image and banging as many guys in "the scene" as possible (e.g. guys in bands, club owners, djs, etc).

Man, ain't that right.

 

[Scaramouche]

Dear All,
Yeah all very amusing,a few years ago,I dated a girl who I subsequently learned was married,after our third meeting,we went down by the Lake,I just happened to have a bottle of wine,a few nibblies,an army roll up mattress and a blanket in the boot of the limmo(Tee Hee)......after the dirty deed our relationship just petered out as they often do.....A few years later I met this girl at a Social function,we drifted away from the Crowd,and I got talking to her,She had split with her husband,and was heavily into Religion......I asked her how she reconciled her little fling with me and her Beliefs "Oh" she smiled coyly "That was your Sin not mine,you had prepared a seduction and I tripped and fell,actually it is your sin,and I forgive you" Funny Huh?....But unlike many of the pious posters here,playing at goody two shoes,I can at least accept that I am a hypocrite if I condemn her.....I have often encouraged and practiced the age old art of Plate spinning,a while ago I was at the Movies with a Lady I subsequently nailed,The conversation went like this,"So do you have any Romantic interests at the moment Scarra"No T....Not really,but I am open to a good relationship with the right Woman" She turned towards me looked me in the the eye and laughed,"OK,so who was that Lady I saw you with at the Movies last week?""Oh her she is just a dancing Partner""So you Waltzed in the front Foyer?" "Oh T....If only you knew how hard it is to find a Dance Partner,there is nothing between us we are just good friends".All is fair in Love and War,isn't it?And not competing with Rollo,to quote from the same Bible "And him who is without Sin,let him cast the first stone"