The Amoral Wasteland?

[Tazman]

Man, keep it coming guys, I love these types of intellectual discussions.

 

[DJDamage]

Found something interesting.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/08/07/INGJ9E31DH1.DTL

Conventional wisdom says men, as members of the sex that can have unlimited numbers of children, have a built-in tendency to two-time and cheat. Women, on the other hand, because they can have only one child every nine months, should want to form faithful partnerships with men who will help raise those children.

Reality is more complicated. Women cheat, too. And researchers have found that females of "monogamous" bird species seem to have affairs in order to land the best genes for their kids.

Evolutionary scientists have long speculated that what applies to sparrows and roosters applies to human beings, too. Now a scientist from the Czech Republic has come up with evidence that seems to support a "mixed mating strategy" in humans.

Using the body odor of men and the noses of women, Jan Havlicek of Charles University in Prague found that ovulating women who already have partners preferred the smell of dominant men, while single women and non- ovulating women with partners showed no such preference.

In a paper in the newest issue of Biology Letters, an academic journal, Havlicek argues that his findings support the theory that single women want nurturing men who will help raise a family. But once the home is secured, they will have the urge to sneak around with men who have the best genes.

"Since women can always get a man for a one-night stand, they gain an advantage if they find partners for child-rearing," Havlicek says. "Single women can be expected to be interested in men that make good fathers."

"Once they have them, though, they can be expected to have extra-pair copulations with men who have good genes."

Scientists believe dominance and traits like facial symmetry are proxies for good genes. These features also happen to be attractive to women, more so when they are ovulating. Meanwhile, studies of birds have shown that attractive males make less attentive fathers.

Havlicek's research adds to a large body of work in the past decade on how sexual preferences change during the course of a women's menstrual cycle. A study co-authored by Havlicek last year found men preferred pictures of fertile women to pictures of the same women at different times of the month. One study showed that ovulating women, when shown videotapes of men in groups, preferred those who "didn't back down."

"What's new in Havlicek's study is that single women and women in relationships responded differently," said Nick Neave, a doctor of Evolutionary Biology at Northumbria University in England.

Havlicek's study also breaks new ground by finding a link between dominance and scent. Other studies have shown women prefer the scent of men with symmetrical features, and that body odor changes according to a person's emotional state, but none had directly linked odor with dominance.

In the study, 48 male students fill out surveys with questions such as "Do you try to outdo others?" They then wore cotton pads under their arms for 24 hours.

Without meeting the men, female students smelled the pads and rated them for sex appeal.

"The higher self-confidence in dominant males may have an impact ... on their body odor," Havlicek writes in Biology Letters.

Studies of mating patterns in species of birds that seemed to pair off for life found that up to 30 percent of the baby birds were illegitimate, sired by males other than the ones taking care of them and living with their mothers.

"This was quite an unexpected finding," says Steve Gangestad, a psychology professor at the University of New Mexico. "A variety of theories were put forward. One is that females seek better genes than those available from her mate from extra-pair males. Human researchers soon entertained whether any of these phenomena also operated in humans."

One study found that unfaithful women have sex with their lovers most often during their fertile phase of the month, and that they are more likely to have the kinds of orgasms that increase the chance of pregnancy -- those close to when the male ejaculates -- with lovers than with partners.

Studies have found that an average of about 5 percent of humans are not the children of the men who raised them, according to Gangestad. That's not counting cases in which the mother simply remarries.

The mixed mating theory, Gangestad said, "has generated some interesting predictions that have been confirmed," but while considered viable, it remains unproven "or even close to proven."

Scientists say studies like Havlicek's have to be duplicated, and other studies in the same vein carried out.

As for the theory's bearing on morality, Havlicek, 30, who has a 26-year- old girlfriend, says a biological tendency shouldn't be mistaken for inevitability, and that what is natural is not always right.

"My study doesn't mean women are programmed to cheat," he said. "They may simply fantasize more during the fertile time of month."

 

[STR8UP]

Originally posted by Deep Dish
When a woman’s emotions start going one way; whether it be anger, sadness, lust; there is no stopping it. Try using logic and reasoning with an angry woman, and try finding an ounce of higher thought when a woman is all revved up and horny.

My buddy and I were talking about this earlier today. I mentioned to him that a girl I know was out with one of his old fukk buddies on New Years. I joked with him and said that I told my friend to relay the message back to this girl that he was asking about her. He said, "That's fine, if she wants to come over I'll take care of her."

I had to remind him that this was the same girl who showed up at his door at 4am one night unannounced, acting histerical because he didn't like her "in that way".

Then I pointed to how my last g/f reacted when I dumped her. She basically turned into a stalker beating on my door and calling me 100 times a night.

Point is, you're right on target when you say that women aren't in control of their emotions. You can make just about any woman do anything you want her to do if you push the right buttons.

 

[RedPill]

To expand on A-Unit's PEOPLE ARE ASLEEP theme, I believe the "amoral wasteland" exists because women's emotional nature makes them more easily influenced by the prevailing attitudes of our society.

And of course, the prevailing attitudes are what many gripe about on this board daily. The list covers everything from women acting too independent to all the rationalized cheating, horish behavior we've all seen. The fact that those of us who are not asleep tend to demand higher standards of living makes it far more difficult to find a suitable woman for a lifelong relationship.

The way I see it - if MOST people subscribe to the attitudes and values of "the sleeping", and women fall more easily into the trap of doping themselves to avoid reality, then finding a woman who is not asleep becomes much more difficult. Some might say impossible. We have a choice to either accept mediocrity in our selection of a mate for the sake of satisfying someone else's marriage agenda, or not accepting anything less than the most suitable woman for the role.

As Rollo likes to remind us, cheating is really just a function of better options crossing paths. If you've done your due dilligence in selecting a woman for an ltr, the odds of cheating occuring will be significantly diminished.

 

[RedPill]

Originally posted by DJDamage
Using the body odor of men and the noses of women, Jan Havlicek of Charles University in Prague found that ovulating women who already have partners preferred the smell of dominant men, while single women and non- ovulating women with partners showed no such preference.

In a paper in the newest issue of Biology Letters, an academic journal, Havlicek argues that his findings support the theory that single women want nurturing men who will help raise a family. But once the home is secured, they will have the urge to sneak around with men who have the best genes.

So science is telling us that women want to have their cake and eat it too. Who knew?

In a related study, guys want a wife that can cook & clean, who will take care of him and raise the kids, but urges to bang super-hot chicks on the side.

 

[Evan_M]

In a related study, guys want a wife that can cook & clean, who will take care of him and raise the kids, but urges to bang super-hot chicks on the side. [/B]

True dat. However I'm finding that even the homlier girls are lousy housekeepers, don't like to cook and would probably be bad mothers.

 

[Wyldfire]

This has happened for two reasons...

First, because women no longer HAVE to rely on a man to take care of her financially and secondly, because virtually every woman has been callously cheated on by at least one man they were faithful to. Most women are of the belief that pretty much all men cheat and rather than hold themselves to a higher standard they just take on the attitude that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Myself, I haven't ever cheated on anyone. I wouldn't do so, either. If I met someone else I wanted to get involved with, I would end the other relationship first. For me, it's all about values and morals. If a person doesn't have those things, they have nothing, in my opinion. Unfortunately, finding someone with a good, solid value system and genuine moral fiber is difficult...whether it's in men or women. It's very easy for you guys to see this problem in women, but it's much harder for you to recognize that the same moral bankruptcy exists in men as well. Somewhere along the line, our culture has been ingrained with a sense of entitlement...and that is what is behind this particular problem in both women and men. Society could do with a lot less sense of entitlement and a lot more sense of responsibility.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

DJDAMAGE: This article is precisely my point here on the Raised by a Single Mother .

It's simple, conditional opportunism that has been hardwired into both sexes for ages and no amount of re-socialization is going to significantly change what millennias of psycho-biological evolution has installed into the behaviors and the motivations for which both sexes have used as insurances for the survival of their own genetic material.

Want to know why women living in close proximity with each other begin to synchronize their menstrual cycles? Look no further than a beneficial evolutionary biology - it makes sense that women ovulating simultaneously made for better simultaneous fertilization opportunities for a single (preferably alpha) male. Studies performed on university women living in the same dorms found that each secrete odorless pheromones, that trigger this synchronization, that only females have the particular receptors in their noses to bind with these proteins.

In our evolutionary, hunter-gatherer past, women lived communally and a single tribal leader had access to concubines, a harem or multiple wives as societal tradition euphemistically gave them allowances to do. Is it any wonder that in this day & age we simply re-order and improvise what our biologys are motivating us towards? Instead of harems we opt for multiple partners in our youth. Instead of polygamy, we have multiple individual marriages and may have multiple offspring from these unions. Women still subscribe to biological opportunism - if not in their words, then certainly in their behavior - when we see the impetus for 'Good Dad' (security provisioner) conflicts with a drive for 'Good Genes' (i.e. she fvcks the pool boy).

Men cheat & women cheat, but it all comes down to how one defines "cheating." Some women define infidelity as a man masturbating to porn. Is this cheating? If a woman fantasizes of having sex with a former lover while making love with her husband is this cheating? Morality in this regard is realtive. Is a woman who has a propensity to 'fall in love' with millionaire men being amoral by missing an opportunity for 'true love' with the sandwich artist at Subway? Why is it that fat women seem to be crazed nymphomaniacs in bed, while more beautiful women are more reserved by comparisson? Who's being amoral here?

 

[Maverick001]

Right, this is nothing new.

I know you guys don`t think that cheating is something new. The only difference now is that it`s not viewed with the same disdain as it was in times past.

So, this begs the question...is it society or the individual at fault here? I would say both. Society is a reflection and a barometer of the individuals that comprise it. In addition, there are other forces trying to shape society and social tastes/preferences for their own gain and advantage. This tussle has been the quintessential struggle from the beginning.

Will people do the right thing? Can they do the right thing? The question is, are they willing to do the right thing? The capacity for both right and wrong exists at the same time in everyone.

Like a great many things, it all comes down to context. If a couple has a mutual agreement and understanding that being with other people, while married, for both or one of the coupled individuals, is ok, then this is not cheating.

When a couple agree that no others will share in their physical intimacy and knowledge of one another, and one or both of the coupled individuals has carnal knowledge of another, despite this agreement and understanding, then this is cheating.

Better to end the relationship and/or marriage instead of cheating and introducing this variable and dynamic to upset things even further. If it`s not working for you and you can`t/don`t want it to work out then get out of it. Why waste more time?

People who cheat, knowing that it`s not ok in their relationship/marriage to do so, are just being selfish. If you decided that you wanted to be exclusive and defined those boundaries and then you breached them, well that`s just immature, plain and simple.

I don`t subscribe to the idea that the propensity for amorality is heightened to some unavoidable point when an opportunity presents itself, as if a person`s values suddenly go into a form of suspended animation, oblivious to all else that`s happening.

If a person is amoral and unethical then they will be SEEKING outlets for this. Opportunity is just an excuse, notwithstanding any scientific or intellectual treatise on the subject.

Human behaviour should be studied, don`t get me wrong, but it`s folly to think that it can be contained in any construct that people can devise. Are there not always exceptions to the models of human behaviour and even more so, are not the models of human behaviour constantly being revised? You`d think that after millenia of human interaction and civilization that we`d have the basic stuff pegged, but is this really the case?

Amorality starts and ends with the individual. Anything that seeks to ameliorate that behaviour and attribute it to genetics, collective social conditioning, social anthropology, whatever, attempts to dilute and weaken the most fundamental thing that makes us human - our free will.

I won`t speak for anyone else but myself and for myself, I say this - I`m not any one of my impulses, or desires. In fact, I`m much much more than all of those things in sum total. I choose.

If an individual thinks that society is amoral and unethical then they can be moral and ethical and demand the same from others. This ripple may propagate and resonate through the rest of society and cause positive change for the benefit of all. If it doesn`t, at least the individual has morals and ethics and at the end of the day, at least they tried to change it for the better.

What are you going to do in the amoral wasteland?

Just my 2 cents.

Cheers,
Mav

 

[GuitarOnFire]

Excellent post. A true Don Juan should be a leader of men and be an inspiration to those around him. Cheating shouldn't even be an option.

 

[DJDamage]

Originally posted by Maverick001
If a person is amoral and unethical then they will be SEEKING outlets for this. Opportunity is just an excuse, notwithstanding any scientific or intellectual treatise on the subject.

I don't think that being moral or ethical can be attributed to cheating. Before or after when someone cheats they may debate the consequences of their actions but their logic is sometimes overpowered by their animal primitive instincts.

When a person cheats most don't do it on purpose to hurt the other person but do it for themselves. Nature influence over millions of years of evloution has created this paradigm where humans of both sexes can cheat for different reasons. One cheats to spread his seeds, the other cheats to assure a stronger offspring. Morals and Ethics do come into play but if you have extreme cases I doubt those will hold much value even for the strongest and logical mind (such as one partner all of the sudden becomes a handicapped and the wife or husband are very tempted each passing day to cheat because their needs are not met)

If a woman cheats on you, I don't believe you should be angry or upset on her but rather the situation. You can be mad that the signs were on the wall and that you picked a bad woman to begin with and didn't pay attention to red flags or look at yourself and analyze whether or not you gotten lazy and expected things to be the same. Things always change, nothing stays the same. Of coarse at this point if a woman cheats and you find out, its best to end things and move on to another woman. Its a double edge sword accepting a woman back after cheating. You know she is no longer on your side and if you let this one time slide, she will think you have no backbone and certainley cheat again.

Maybe its the cough medicine talking since I can't sleep but cheating should not be looked upon like its a horror or the end of the world but rather an acceptance of human beings as being one that does not act logically but rather acts more on its natural given instincts. Monogomy is not a natural thing in nature.

I will probably laugh at my post when I will wake up tomorow.......

DjDamage

 

[Maverick001]

Originally posted by DJDamage
I don't think that being moral or ethical can be attributed to cheating. Before or after when someone cheats they may debate the consequences of their actions but their logic is sometimes overpowered by their animal primitive instincts.

When a person cheats most don't do it on purpose to hurt the other person but do it for themselves. Nature influence over millions of years of evloution has created this paradigm where humans of both sexes can cheat for different reasons. One cheats to spread his seeds, the other cheats to assure a stronger offspring. Morals and Ethics do come into play but if you have extreme cases I doubt those will hold much value even for the strongest and logical mind (such as one partner all of the sudden becomes a handicapped and the wife or husband are very tempted each passing day to cheat because their needs are not met)

If a woman cheats on you, I don't believe you should be angry or upset on her but rather the situation. You can be mad that the signs were on the wall and that you picked a bad woman to begin with and didn't pay attention to red flags or look at yourself and analyze whether or not you gotten lazy and expected things to be the same. Things always change, nothing stays the same. Of coarse at this point if a woman cheats and you find out, its best to end things and move on to another woman. Its a double edge sword accepting a woman back after cheating. You know she is no longer on your side and if you let this one time slide, she will think you have no backbone and certainley cheat again.

Maybe its the cough medicine talking since I can't sleep but cheating should not be looked upon like its a horror or the end of the world but rather an acceptance of human beings as being one that does not act logically but rather acts more on its natural given instincts. Monogomy is not a natural thing in nature.

I will probably laugh at my post when I will wake up tomorow.......

DjDamage

DjDamage,

I addressed the topic of cheating because it was the focus of the last few posts preceding mine.

Amoral and unethical behaviour is rampant everywhere. It`s not confined to just cheating, lying, stealing or exploitation.

The point that I was making was that every one has the ability and strength to choose whether they want to be amoral/unethical or not. It`s not nature and not evolution.

At one time, people lived in caves and hunted and foraged for their food. This was the "natural" way of things. We`ve sinced moved on.

At one time, people lived without electricity and this was the "natural" way of things. We`ve since moved on.

And so on for all those things that were "natural" but are no longer.

As far as monogamy not being natural in nature, there are examples both for and against that view. I personally don`t give any credence to the behaviour of flora or fauna as being indicative of how human beings should conduct themselves in their personal matters. Here too, it`s their choice.

If nature is to be regarded as an arena to explore our own behaviour and attitudes regarding sexual relationships, then I`d like to cite one example where the male is simply regarded as a one time sperm donor and then discarded from society. This happens with honey bees, as far as I understand. The male bees, once they become of age, impregnate the queen bee and then they are pushed out of the hive and are not welcome to return. The bees are simply doing what their "natural given instincts" are telling them to do.

As for us, I know that we are both part of and above nature. This is why we as a species have dominated this world and use nature to further our own progress.

Lastly, being weak and succumbing to our animal primitive instincts is the indiscretion of the younger man and not the mature one, in so far as being amoral and unethical is concerned.

The mature man, should always take the high road and choose moral and ethical behaviour over the opposite. This is the hallmark of maturity and wisdom.

Just my 2 cents.

Cheers,
Mav

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

MAVERICK: Advances in immediate technology certainly change our conditions and our environments, but have little effect on innate, psycho-biological schemas evolved for millennia. Obviously social dynamics have come into being as latent functions to regulate these natural impulses. All one need do is look at the 10 Commandments (or like golden rules) to see how these tenets function in, at least modestly, a regulatory way to curb natural impulse. This in no way denies that men and women aren't or shouldn't be subject to them. Moral absolutism will ALWAYS be trumped by simple biology and the circumstance availabe to act upon it. Rolling around in a dung heap is revolting to human beings, but to a pig or a fly it's paradise found. Does that make a pile of sh!t good or bad?

Men are motivated by spreading the seed, women are motivated by securing the partner best suited to provide security and good genetic stock. Moral or not, each is motivated toward the best opportunity each is capable of making realistic (conscious or unconscious) comparissons for. A 'cheating' man or woman is (generally) acting in their own biological best interest - is this moral? Societal conventions meant to regulate this behavior define it as not, but biologically the impulse makes it the right decision in the correct circumstance of opportunity.

 

[TSee]

Interesting story, being a guy in my early 40's I can tell you this about the 25-year old ho/cheaters .... 99 percent of them turn into ultra-pathetic/used up ugly, out of shape, cheating, alcoholic beyotchs by the time they're about 38. This will happen to the gal bedding the rock star who will never make it big. Let's get a look at her when she's 38 -- my guess, fat, ugly, couple kids, divorced twice -- in turn, the rock star is fat, ugly, bitter, and keeps complaining how he got screwed by the record industry.

I mean, c'mon, have you EVER seen any of these women with loose morals look great when they hit 40? They reap what they sow ... it's a rather sweet revenge, IMO.
***********************************
Where in the world do you find your stats? ONE single experience of yours adds up to 99% of women evolving to all that crap you wrote? Dude? Get a clue. There are some very attractive women, professional as well, in their 40's and UP who cheat. Being lonely in the end, after all have been betrayed is when one realizes they reap what they sow. and it's a two-way street

 

[Maverick001]

Rollo,

I strongly disagree with most of what you`ve opined. Here`s why:

Originally posted by Rollo Tomassi
MAVERICK: Advances in immediate technology certainly change our conditions and our environments, but have little effect on innate, psycho-biological schemas evolved for millennia.

Advances in technology didn`t change our conditions and environments. It freed us from them.

The millenia of passing time has lead us from being singularly occupied with the business of survival - i.e. hunting/gathering, eating, sleeping and f#cking - to where we are now. From the first discoveries of using stones and sticks, to fire, to the latests advances in science and technology. I`ll be the first to say that not all progress has aided in the comfort of life or been benign and positive. There have been many pitfalls along the way.

Over time, humanity has given itself the luxury of thinking beyond the everyday, routine requirements of survival and been able to dominate this world and harness nature for our own ends. As well, we`ve been able to explore those other parts of our nature - art, literature, music, philosophy, science, spirituality, etc. - none of which would be possible if we kept defaulting back to our innate, psycho-biological schemas.

We would have never asked, "Why?"

We would`ve remained those cave dwellers looking up at the stars while eating the day`s kill instead of exploring those same stars like we do now.

Originally posted by Rollo Tomassi
Obviously social dynamics have come into being as latent functions to regulate these natural impulses. All one need do is look at the 10 Commandments (or like golden rules) to see how these tenets function in, at least modestly, a regulatory way to curb natural impulse. This in no way denies that men and women aren't or shouldn't be subject to them. Moral absolutism will ALWAYS be trumped by simple biology and the circumstance availabe to act upon it.

Whether one follows a set of religious edicts, the social morays of the day or defines ethical/moral behaviour for themselves - they ultimately decide. Choice made by free will.

Moral relativism will always triumph over simple biology and the circumstance available to act upon it because there are only 3 kinds of people in regards to that. Ones that play by the rules they set and ones that don`t, and ones that don`t play by any rules at all. Without exception, people from all 3 categories will have justifications/rationalizations for their behaviour, relative to their circumstances.

There will always be a group of people who have decided that seeking sexual intimacy outside their exclusive relationship is wrong for them and they will abide by it.

The morality aspect is relative, as I said in my previous post. If being with other people, in addition to being in a exclusive relationship, is playing by the rules, as set out by all involved, then it`s not cheating. Cheating is not playing by the rules.

Originally posted by Rollo Tomassi
Rolling around in a dung heap is revolting to human beings, but to a pig or a fly it's paradise found. Does that make a pile of sh!t good or bad?

Both. It`s good in some ways and bad in others. It depends on the application and for whom. Farmers in the 3rd world still use animal dung to fertilize their fields and so it`s beneficial for them. If synthetic compounds weren`t or couldn`t be manufactured to replace those organic components in dung then farmers the world over would be using livestock sh!t to fertilize their fields.

Pigs don`t actually like rolling around in dung, and I can think of a commercial pig population that is kept immaculately clean and well cared for. In Israel, the commercial pig stock there is kept in above ground pens where they can`t roll in anything like mud or crap. Just fyi.

Again, I don`t subscribe to the notion that the study of animal behaviour can be used to understand human behaviour. Humans love to view the universe through anthropomorphic tinted lenses and want to believe that Nature echoes them. It`s just mammals being mammals, insects being insects, fish being fish, etc.

Originally posted by Rollo Tomassi
Men are motivated by spreading the seed, women are motivated by securing the partner best suited to provide security and good genetic stock. Moral or not, each is motivated toward the best opportunity each is capable of making realistic (conscious or unconscious) comparissons for. A 'cheating' man or woman is (generally) acting in their own biological best interest - is this moral?

That`s not all the motivation that`s at work here. I`m sure you`re familiar with Maslow`s hierarchy of human needs so no point in discussing the applicability here.

Here`s a link for the other sosuavers, should they want to read about Maslow`s hierarchy of human needs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

Yes, "cheating" men or women are (generally) acting in their best biological interests. However, there`s more to consider than just that.

All those men, who are in exclusive relationships, where cheating is defined as having sex with others, and the exclusive relationship is working out, please raise your hands. Ok.

Now how many of you would give sex to another woman, if the opportunity presented itself and there was no way of being found out. Ok, probably a lot of you. The ones that wouldn`t cheat? Ok, a few.

To those that raised their hands and honestly said that they would cheat, it`s time to redefine those rules that you have in place for your exclusive relationship regarding cheating. The current rules are not working for you.

As for the men who said they wouldn`t cheat, kudos for you for working the arrangement you have in place.

The extreme repercussions for cheating, when such behaviour is unacceptable, is the breakdown of the relationship or marriage, estrangement from any children and potential financial hemorrhaging if the matter ends up in an female biased family court, which is mostly true for North America. Is the emotional and financial grind worth it?

Originally posted by Rollo Tomassi
Societal conventions meant to regulate this behavior define it as not, but biologically the impulse makes it the right decision in the correct circumstance of opportunity.

Ah, so it is still a decision after all.

It`s part of Man`s nature to be on the lookout for an attractive sex partner, no doubt but that`s not all.

It`s Man`s nature to grow beyond his nature and become something far greater, without losing any of his nature in the process. That is the beauty of Humanity, to have both the primal and the cerebral.

Just my 2 cents, although it was more like 5 cents this time.

Cheers,
Mav

 

[dietzcoi]

Pig farms in Israel? That does not sound right!

Dietzcoi

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

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.

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.

For example lets consider Pablo Picasso. Not my favorite artist, but one most people recognize as a considerable personality in art. The humanist would hold Pablo up as the banner of human achievement - a fantastic artist as the result of our progress as a race and a tribute to our overcoming our brutish past. To which the behaviorist would ask, "why should it be that art is so highly valued among human beings?" For that answer we have to go back to the root causes for creative expression. Cavemen painted pictures of animals they'd killed on cave walls for millenia before Pablo arrived on the scene. Now you can argue that these drawings were communicative in nature, but the function of them was to convey a message - "Here is how we killed an antelope and you can too thusly." Language then springs from this methodology and we progress, but the base function is communication that benefited the survival of the species.

Then you may ask why would Pablo personally want to be an artist? The humanist replies, "to fulfill his personal need for expression to become a self-actualized being" and the behaviorist answers "to make his life's function easier." I sincerely doubt that if any manifestation of creative intelligence wasn't a precursor for sexual selection there would be so many "artists" throughout history. I could easily make similar arguments for famous inventors, scientists or even Benjamin Franklin. It all returns to root motivations - the lower echelons of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

 

[Alicorn]

Originally posted by Maximus_Decimus
Sexuality is an ingrained behavior... On the other hand, we instinctively know what is attractive and what isn't.

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.

 

[JackPrescott]

Originally posted by Deep Dish
Call me a late bloomer if you wish but over the past few years, while I have been slowly but steadily improving myself, I have been finding something very worrisome about women. I find it perilously disconcerting how they suffer from what seems to be a sheer lack of consciousness. Aside from the fact that if you observe any group of two or more women, no men, talking at leisure about whatever they want—in other words, girl talk—the only thing they ever talk about is people, either their life or the lives of people in their lives; aside from that; there is a vaccuum of amorality. The only thing worse than immorality is amorality; it is better to be bad but have an existing moral compass than to be nothing but different masks.

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. I fvcked a girl who (as it turns out) had a boyfriend and I fvcked another girl who who was engaged. I made out with a woman for an hour and about three fourths the way through I felt a big ring on her left wedding finger. I was struck by how it didn’t seem to even occur to them they were committing indiscretions. No sense of guilt, no second thought. No... thoughts. No “I shouldn’t be doing this.” They were the entirety of the emotion they were in at the moment. Sex. Lust. I had a date with a woman who had slept with over forty men—quite some sex enthusiast. Over the years I have witnessed women be on the hunt for a new boyfriend—or boytoy—and it’s disconcerting how at one moment they may be overheard expressing how they will dump their boyfriend or be found to just not obstruct male advances—no sense of guilt—but then to see them show complete desire and loyality when they are with their man. I keep thinking to myself that if I were that boyfriend I would have no clue in knowing anything was wrong.

There is a married gothic chick that I kinda know, who is 19 and married right out of high school. (Yes, disaster in the making.) She is very friendly to me and flirts with me, has made suggestions on various occasions about partying together, but I have kept myself restrained out of respect of possible negative consequences. I think I recently saw her at a bar, with her husband. I didn’t say anything to them but I sensed the guy picked up on who I was and seemed to be profoundly sad, like maybe he was realizing he had married a slvt, giving credence to the wisdom that gothic chicks are perhaps too easy. Who knows what was going on but it is moments like those which I find disconcerting.

There is always the argument put forth by women, married men, religious men, skinny or fat white boys, that on the subject of women and their hollow nature: “Yes, but if you find a good woman...” Okay, maybe—maybe “not all” women cheat. If we are to believe research on infidelity that a good handful of women never cheat, based on the word of women, there is hope. But if the nature of women is amorality, complete emotion, and if the lady front continues to progressively get easier for me as I progressively become a more desirable man, how am I to trust any woman that she won’t sleep or fool around while putting on the masks of goodness? If it becomes so easy for me to lay women regardless of their masks, what’s to stop another man to do the same against me?

It seems as if, if women reject the advances of a man it is not out of any sense of morality, of wedding vows, of honor of word, but simply because the price wasn’t right. Women are attracted to men with character and you know what they say about attraction, you are attracted to traits you don’t have.

1. Alls fair in love and war.
2. If a woman is out without her man at a bar or nightclub after hours, all bets are off.
3. In lust, the rules are there are no rules. Women see what they want, and if they are attractive enough to f**k, it's on, baby. When a woman REALLY wants a man, and there is a degree of Emotional Attachment, there is no God, no child or children, no parents, no interfering coock blocks, no sisters, no church, no husband, boyfriend, fiancee, or roadblock or wall in the world that will keep her from getting naked with the man of her choice.

 

[Alicorn]

This:

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

And this:

Originally posted by Maximus_Decimus
Sexuality is an ingrained behavior... we instinctively know what is attractive and what isn't.

Are contradictions.

Sexuality cannot be social and WHOLY biological as you claim in the second post.

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

"Perfect" is a human value judgement, nature does not make human value judgements.