Wives Disrespecting Husbands

[STR8UP]

Hi guys, I hope you don't mind me butting in, but I am the guy who wrote the articles at "No Ma'am" linked further up the page. I seen your link and have been following along.

Ah, you looked up where your blog traffic was coming from and found us....WELCOME! Now that you're here you should post more often.

I read the entire first page and have to say that you make some very compelling arguments.

As in, a cat who had somehow rationalized to itself to certain behaviours to exist in a society (of other cats), would lose ALL control of its social skills, BUT, if the reptillian brain remained intact, it would still act out its "sexual parade" and the cats of the opposite sex would respond to in the EXACT same manner as before - as in, the 'reptillian brain' has ENORMOUS powers over our cognitave brain.

What I don't get is how anyone could possibly take the view that somehow our social self is "higher" than our biology. Anyone with half a brain realizes that the only thing that CAN be a primary motivator is our biology, lest our species be eradicated in short order.

And so, while we do have the ability to "reason," our ability to reason is artificially manufactured by our sexual desires.

Exactly. All paths of human interaction begin at our need to survive and reproduce.

The evidence that the two are intricately intermeshed because of our biology is OVERWHELMING!

Key words highlighted by me.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[TheHumanist]

To tie this back Str8up to the original point that brought disagreement. You have just stated that women are just "being a woman" and going by their nature.

Nature, in this case, is the source of the force that brings the feeling of attraction to other beings as well as the desire to ****. However, I have to doubt that nature brings the actually action of disrespect to husbands. You can argue that nature can bring the feeling of detest to husbands (ie if a husband turn AFC) which leads to disrespect. However, I have to question if it nature that make them unable to understand that going out at 3:00 at night, lied to the husband (thus indicated they do know that it is not right), and act like they did no wrong, as you said earlier, is a part of a women's nature.


Keto - Interesting premise and reminds me of the recent studies by Richard Davidson of University of Wisconsin-Madison who is studying the science of happiness and also looking into other positive emotions. The idea that nurture as the force that brings the mind to think at higher level actually seem to go well with the findings. They found the brain is very plastic and like other emotions (ironic, but very few until very recently study happiness or other positive qualities with scientific rigor) lit up the brain. Like lifting weights builds and tones muscle, constant use of the mind including happiness and other feelings like compassion builds up the brain in that sector. If society push to cultivate more compassionate people, it will not just nurture, but push the brain to rewire itself, which is nature. You might be very correct in the hypothesis that the mind is simply not being "exercised" enough.


edit: As for Ned's argument, I think there is miscommunication, both sides of the debate are both not just saying nature rules or nurtures rules. Though, I would say our rational reasoning capacity is not just an artificial construct or at least the word "artificial", we may only exist with the program to survive and reproduce, but your desires aim higher than just that. Unless you feel you are completely happy and satisfied having a kid and not being dead. Even though our greater ambitions may be at the very core may be just desire to bring value to ourselves to reproduce. For example, Str8up, you don't just see your line of work that you love to do as just working to get women to reproduce with, am I not correct?

 

[thedeparted]

Hey Rob, Great Post!

Excellent article on marriage as a fraudulent contract.

What I want to know is, what should we do about it? I mean, I don't want to play the field forever. I have come across some 20 lbs too heavy but nice tits girls that I would keep around if I could. But they all insist on getting married and having kids eventually. And as you make clear, that is a rotten deal these days.

So, you've elucidated the problem really well. What is the solution? Do you go off to another country where divorce laws are not so bad and settle there? Do you put your faith in a prenup that any feminist judge can shlt on? Do you hide your assets overseas? What SOLUTIONS do you recommend when you want to stick with one girl for the long-term?

 

[Victory Unlimited]

Troops...


Any man who believes and accepts that his, or his woman's degree of self control and power of choice is only at a level equal to that of the lowest of animals will NEVER experience the healthiest, highest, and most fulfilling types of relationships.

And..

Any man (or woman) who does not seek to hold himself (or herself) accountable to either a higher principle of morality, a higher standard of ethics, or a higher spiritual power-------CANNOT ever successfully achieve a peaceful, respectful, mutually satisfying, LONG TERM, monogamous relationship.



Soldier on.

 

[Mr.Positive]

Truth VU.

Perhaps this thread is proof that our 'rational' brain, trumps our 'reptilian' brain, afterall. Perhaps we are just thinking too much.

Regardless, one thing that separates mankind, from animals, is a conscious. I doubt that's part of the reptilian brain. We often take action, based upon a personal sense, of right or wrong.

Our reptilian brain gives us a DRIVE, as men. Our rational brain gives us a choice.

 

[STR8UP]

Troops...


Any man who believes and accepts that his, or his woman's degree of self control and power of choice is only at a level equal to that of the lowest of animals will NEVER experience the healthiest, highest, and most fulfilling types of relationships.

And..

Any man (or woman) who does not seek to hold himself (or herself) accountable to either a higher principle of morality, a higher standard of ethics, or a higher spiritual power-------CANNOT ever successfully achieve a peaceful, respectful, mutually satisfying, LONG TERM, monogamous relationship.



Soldier on.

Sorry, but one thing that annoys me more than anything when I post is the fact that I can take a an analytical, critical, almost CENTRIST point of view on a certain subject, and the next thing you know the counter argument is all the way out in left field.

No one is speaking in absolutes, yet you focus on words like NEVER and CANNOT that were never even brought into play, for some reason.

NO ONE is claiming that women are controlled exclusively by their monkey brains. Yet that is the basis for your counter attack. I'm not singling you out specifically, but WTF???

And your "higher, higher, HIGHER" philosophy is quite noble, but I'm not buying. The Machiavellian school of thought is much closer to what takes place in the real world and what actually moves one forward in the path to success in life.

Some are content to live within the confines a society prescribes for them; others aspire to make the rules. Which are you?

However, I have to doubt that nature brings the actually action of disrespect to husbands.

Since you are a younger poster BUT seem very open to new ideas, i will cut you some slack.

Understand something. EVERYTHING YOU DO REVOLVES AROUND ONE OF TWO THINGS. Either-

1) Surviving

or

2) Getting laid

I it was Chris Rock who said "If women would fukk in cardboard boxes men wouldn't buy houses"?

 

[Nelford]

It's men that put up with this BS. I tell a woman quick, don't set at my table unless you are willing to bring something to it. You have to test these women like they test us men. They are trying to see what you are all about, what type of man you are. Most men are afraid to do this out of fear of losing her. Don't get into a marriage or LTR unless you did your recon work. Find out if she a giver or taker. If she is a taker put her to the side and move on. I'm really having a hard time understanding what is so hard about this.

All of my friends are Alpha Males and let me tell you they don't put up with none of that BS and women are all over them. They do what they want when they want.

I don't agree with some of things they do but I hate to say it, it works wonders for them. I'm a little bit more respectful but I don't give it away like holloween candy. I stand tall on what I'm willing to deal with and not. Let me give you guys an example. One time I was dating this woman and she got out of hand in public. I pulled her to the side and in a low tone read her the riot act. She was mad but at the end of the night this woman told me she like that. I'm thinking to myself like what is wrong with these women. You like me putting you in your place.

Some men are doing way too much out here. Be a man, do what you want, let your nuts hang and watch what happen.

 

[Rob Fedders]

In order to understand what is going on, one has to start looking at religion.

(Rob ducks as the rain of beer bottles and raspberries sails over his head - "Nyah, nyah, ya missed me!").

Please do not equate me with a Bible thumper, for I am anything but. I am merely discussing the role that a book like the Bible plays in tempering our "rational brain."

All humans have the ability to rationalize any behaviour they wish.

Jail is full of innocent people.

Al Capone was furious that he was put in prison. He believed he was a humanitarian of the highest order. He "rationalized" to himself that his crimes of murdering thousands of people was completely justifiable because when the Depression came, he used his power and wealth to start up soup kitchens for the hungry and to provide housing for the homeless. And, he really did do this. He was popular with the people because of it. However, he also murdered thousands of people to attain the power to be able to do so.

His rational brain moved so far away from reality that he began living in a self created la-la land.

In South America, human sacrifice was common. The people that thought nothing strange of seeing a fresh 16 year old virgin, strapped to a stone tablet, and having a sharp knife plunged into her belly.

My point is that we can, and do, rationalize anything we wish.

This is highly problematic, because we can get so far off the path of reality that we eventually end up snuffing ourselves out.

There is a universal morality that exists in all successful religions, and in fact, there is not one society that has ever prospered which was not attached to religion. Of course, the most successful religions are not "correct" because of what they preach. They are successful because they create a society which prospers and dominates the societies around them. Us guys on this board could create a philosophy to live by and it wouldn't be but a fart in a hurricane... however, if our philosophy causes us to breed more than others, and to become more prosperous than others, in a few hundred years, our philosophy will begin to dominate others... (like, the feminists who insist on having only one child at 40 years old when their wombs are rusty and filled with cob webs, will have no chance of competing if everyone around them had 8 kids who grow up believing an opposite philosophy. Feminists are preaching a death culture. Christians who "go forth and multiply," are preaching a life culture.)

Now, back to this "universal morality" which exists in all successful religions/societies.

It is the 10 commandments.

The 10 commandments are not specific to Christianity, but are universal to all successful societies.

I request you stop for a moment, and contemplate what the 10 commandments are telling us.

They are instructing us not to live as animals.

The 10 commandments are the anti-thesis to animal existence.

You are to subscribe to "one true god." This is absolutism. This is what takes away Capone's ability to rationalize murderous behaviour. God, in the Bible, mostly describes himself with riddles. I am who I am. I am the beginning and the end. I am the alpha and the omega... and so on. Always in riddles. The only time he actually does define himself is when he tells us that he IS the truth... the "one true way"... and so on - God is an absolute, he never changes, just like the absolute truth - read the story about the fall of man in the Garden of Eden. It is about mankind using his cognitive ability to create a "relative truth" which he places over the "absolute truth." Our brain has the ability to convince ourselves that jumping off a cliff won't harm us, but the absolute truth always kicks our ass in the end. (Btw, this is why there is such a debate over Creationism & Evolution - Evolution allows for an ever changing truth, which gives Humanists - the religion we now live under - the rational for socially engineering humans to their will - I don't really care to debate evolution, but I am only saying this is why all leftists subscribe to evolution, like in the USSR - because it gives them the right to alter the future condition of mankind, whereas the Bible does not give you that right).

Animals do not take care of their parents. They abandon them completely. This is still ingrained within us. Parents love their children and sacrifice for them to ensure their genes pass on through the ages, but, it is not biological for animals to care for their parents, nor to give up resources to them. However, being "anti-animals" and caring for our parents has enabled humans to live longer and longer. (We should be dying at around mid-life crisis - which is where most "savages" died in the past, like the American Indians, Polynesians, and so on - all following unsuccessful religions which became dominated by successful ones).

It is animal like to kill and steal. Animals do this daily. We do not. But, we still have those instincts within us and we actively suppress them. After all, survival of the fittest does not lead to a successful society. Why would you bother to grow a crop of corn if I would just show up in the fall with a gun and steal your corn from you? Survival of the fittest. I would eat and live and you would die. And no-one would bother growing corn.

Animals covet their neighbour's wives. But doing so destroys the family unit.

Even when we get outside of the 10 Commandments, we find things that are obviously condemning animal behaviour. Look at sexuality. I don't care if you want to hump everything that moves - that is natural. However, what we are finding is that it is kinda like drunk driving. Just because one person drinks and drives, doesn't make the roads inherently dangerous. But, if EVERYONE drinks and drives, there is going to be mass chaos. And so it is that with the entirety of our society screwing everything that moves, STD's are infecting us at a stupendous rate (30% of caucasion women and nearly 50% of black women, have either HPV or herpes). And the result? Well, this is not talked about AT ALL, but not only are we not having enough children, but we are losing our ability to reproduce. STD's lead to mass infertility... and that will eventually snuff us out as a civilization. Maybe sexual morality and monogamy has purposes that we do not recognize until it is far too late to do anything about it? We will indeed soon be "wiped from the face of the earth" just like those people in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Following our animal desires leads to "anti-civilization," and cultural death. Humans will go on, like animals will, but civilization will not.

The "universal morality" instructs us NOT to be animals.

The US Founding Fathers recognized much the same thing in humans, which is why they created a Constitution - something which cannot be changed easily. The Constitution is simply a smaller version of the Biblical function, which is to create absolute truths. They fully recognized that human society has a natural tendency to simply rationalize away the things they do not wish to be true. "Natural" humanity has the ability to eternally change the truth to be whatever is most convenient at the time. But, no matter how much we convince ourselves that we can fly by flapping our arms, the ground at the bottom of the cliff will trump our "rational" brain every time. We must have certain absolutes, and we can live freely within those absolute goalposts, but without those immoveable goalposts, we will kill ourselves... everytime... eventually.

The ability of humans to "reason" is obviously our greatest tool - but, without properly tempering that ability, the ability to reason can also be extremely deadly and "anti-human."

It is certainly possible to find absolutes without the use of religion. We are, in fact, doing it right now.

But, in order for society to be successful, we must have most of the people adhering to a similar system, otherwise known as cultural hegemony.

Most people are simply too busy living, or too busy being idiots to explore and discover absolutes. Most philosophers are, in fact, seeking absolutes without the use of religion... but, I don't meet too many modern versions of Socrates when I step out the door. I meet mostly idiots. You cannot expect millions of people to subscribe to a particular philosophy "just because." Therefore, we have religion so we don't have to explain all of these intricacies to the masses of idiots. "Just do it, you dopes! Before we die!" That is the function of religion.

As per, the specific topic of this thread, which is why women disrespect men so much... think of it as an animal like function.

It is in a woman's best interests to disrespect men, take their resources, and then discard the male and get knocked up by the next guy. Women have only 400 eggs, and to have all of your eggs fertilized by one male is "anti-animal." Nature would dictate that each time she gets knocked up, it is by a different male, so as to ensure some genetic diversity. This is the only real difference between male and female "mate choosing." It is in both genders "best animal interests" to have sex with multiple partners. The only difference is that a woman's best interest is to slow the process down, so she can leech resources off the male while she has young children, or is pregnant and vulnerable. As soon as that is over, her biological best interest is to find another male. It is not called "serial monogamy." That is an oxymorn created by dopes. It is "rotating polyandry." (Rotation of the "important male" in a woman's life). It is also anti-civilization, because it removes men from children, and thus, removes male's desire to create a structured and coherent society.

Women did not "become like this" by some magic.

Woman have ALWAYS been *****y and hostile to males. And they always will be.

 

[Rob Fedders]

There is a book out there called “Sex and Culture” which was written by JD Unwin in the 1930’s. He was an anthropologist who adhered to Freudian philosophy.

Mr. Unwin took it upon himself to study 80 different cultures from the past, in regard to sexuality. He wound up being very pissed off because everything that he discovered completely contradicted his beliefs up to that point (Freudianism), but, unlike the nitwit academics of the modern day, he had the moral fortitude to report his findings accurately, despite his extreme uneasiness with it contradicting his life-long beliefs.

He discovered that “female freedom” is 100% related to female sexuality.

You cannot “liberate” women without giving them 100% license to screw men indiscriminately. He discovered that women will not stay with one man, but, in fact, will always behave as they do today.

He discovered that divorce, child support and alimony has existed many, many times in the past. The Babylonians had child support and divorce (the Babylonians rose up from the Sumerian civilization, thereby linking it to the oldest civilization known to mankind).

He also discovered that when female sexuality/freedom peaked (as it is doing today), the civilization soon destroyed itself, within but a few generations. And then, the remnants of that civilization became highly embittered towards women, and cruelly misogynistic towards them (like killing them for adultery), and this cruel misogyny again would lead to another civilization creating itself from the ashes of the old one… and eventually, over time, the natural males “mangina-ness” would again give women more and more freedom, and this cycle simply repeats itself over and over again, throughout history… nearly universally. (For example – as Darius III of Persia was getting his ass handed to him by Alexander the Great, he lamented “My men have become women, and my women have become men.” Feminist cultures universally die, or live as “savages.”)

It is the old story of the yin and the yang. The one takes over the other, and then gets taken over again in a never ending cycle. (A truly “progressive” society, therefore, would seek to stop this cycle at some point where both genders achieve some measure of fairness and happiness, while still acknowledging that certain goalposts must remain).

This stuff is not new. Women have always been hostile to men. In the book of Judges, there is a woman who snuck up on her husband as he slept, and she drove a tent peg through his temple – just like the Mary Winkler’s of today.

Joseph was falsely accused of rape by Potiphar’s wife, for her own nefarious purposes, and manginas came from far and wide to defend the lying woman, and toss the man in prison, just as we do today.

I could give you thousands of examples that women have always been this way.

Here is a really good one – it was written 700 years ago, but could have been written yesterday by any married man you know.

http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/matheol.html

“This female clock is really driving me mad, for her quarrelsome din doesn’t stop for a moment. The tongue of a quarrelsome woman never tires of chiming in. She even drowns out the sound of the church bell. A nagging wife couldn’t care less whether her words are wise or foolish, provided that the sound of her own voice can be heard. She simply pursues her own ends; there’s not a grain of sense in what she says; in fact she finds it impossible to have a decent thought. She doesn’t want her husband to be the boss and finds fault with everything he does. Rightly or wrongly, the husband has no choice: he has to put up with the situation and keep his mouth shut if he wants to remain in one piece. No man, however self disciplined or clear sighted he may be, can protect himself adequately against this. A husband has to like what the wife likes, and disapprove of what she hates and criticize what she criticizes so that her opinions appear to be right. So anyone who wishes to immolate himself on the altar of marriage will have a lot to put up with. Fifteen times, both day and night, he will suffer without respite and he will be sorely tormented. Indeed, I believe that this torture is worse than the torments of hell, with its chains, fire, and iron.”

 

[KontrollerX]

Hey Rob just a heads up to put your age in your profile so as not to have your posts deleted on The Mature Man forum.

To do that you just click the "user cp" link at the top left corner of the page and the screen that you will come to will have a link on the left for your profile so you can fill out the birthdate information and get your age shown.

 

[TheHumanist]

Since you are a younger poster BUT seem very open to new ideas, i will cut you some slack.

Understand something. EVERYTHING YOU DO REVOLVES AROUND ONE OF TWO THINGS. Either-

1) Surviving

or

2) Getting laid

I it was Chris Rock who said "If women would fukk in cardboard boxes men wouldn't buy houses"?

Okay, though if I was older, what would that mean exactly? Make a stronger argument? I'm not sure on what you mean if I was jophil's age making a similar argument.


Anyways, I'm very much aware that in viewing in the evolutionary sense that all actions can looked as getting laid or survival. IE getting a job is survival, getting promoted can increase survival and ability to provide resources to get laid, etc. (Note: I'm more from a Aristotelian school of thought with Enlightenment Humanism and Machiavellian views).

My argument still stands as before that if even though we have the two desires, do you only see your business that you pursue and your ambitions as only to survive and and to attract women? Do you not enjoy your business or your hobbies? Do you not enjoy the company of your friends? My argument is while our primary motivators is to survive and reproduce, does that makes everything else a rationalization? Does that make your enjoyment in your projects (like that art you are working on I recall), the fun with your friends, and your curiosity that leads to your post your adventures here to analyze, not real? Does looking from the other philosophies, ie the pursuit of happiness, not real?

As such, you noticed that wives are disrespecting her husband by going out late into the night and then lied to him. Is that more to bad character or women's nature? Nature gives her the desire survive and reproduce which is then manifested into her actions, but since she is still a conscious being, just with dispositions to certain ways, then it is still in her control. While not completely in conscious control and she may rationalize her actions, she is aware and still choose to do such actions.



As for the last argument by Ned, I would like to give a small correction that civilization, ten commandments, and constitution is not anti-animal. We are still animals, just in higher degrees. Okay, it just semantics, but I'm going somewhere with this. As research have found, we are separate from them not so much of abilities, but degrees of ability. We think on a higher order and more complicated level. As bias, error-prone, subjected to emotions, and rationalized, we still have reason. We are very capable to look at something rationally and impartially, when we want to and if cultivated. If cultivated, as Keto point out and research, we can fill our rational mind to think higher. We have the potential (this may also help back up other research findings on those with higher IQs have less partners but still with one longer).


Now str8up, if you disagree with me, I do try to keep an open mind. I do agree that biology and nature affect us much and manifest in us in many ways, but I give contest that we should view all actions as such, there's more reasons "closer" to the actions that should be given attention too.

BTW, the Machiavellian school of thought follow one should be noble as much as possible (higher, higher, higher), but willing to "learn to do evil" when necessary. Do good (and take credit too for the reputation points), don't do so much as people memories are short, but Machiavelli, unlike other philosophies, allows exceptions.

 

[mrRuckus]

I think men are 50% of the problem, and women the other 50%. Men put up with this crap, and women do it because they can get away with it. .

Ridiculous.

I self regulate.

I can get away with all sorts of crap, but I still do not do those things because they are wrong.

Don't blame me 50% for what someone who is not me does. If you want to blame me for a woman's behavior then give me reign to do so. Let me hit her and train her into her place. I can do that with a dog to make him behave. I can dig my heels into my horse to direct him as I see fit. If you make me responsible for the woman animal's behavior then give me the tools to do so.

If i get married i have NO LEVERAGE. She can leave on a whim for any reason at all and take half my sh1t. I have a lot of sh1t. I work hard for my sh1t. She disrespects me... ok, so what can i do? Give her $100,000 of my cash and move out of my own house? Yea that sounds like a good deal.

If women have no sense of morality themselves, then they deserve no rights. How can i trust them to vote based on the benefit of society if they care about the needs of no one but themselves?

The real problem is that men actually buy into this nonsense that women are equal. They are not. They are not smarter, but they are weaker. How is being not smarter and not as strong as men being equal?

 

[ketostix]

All humans have the ability to rationalize any behaviour they wish.

In South America, human sacrifice was common. The people that thought nothing strange of seeing a fresh 16 year old virgin, strapped to a stone tablet, and having a sharp knife plunged into her belly.

My point is that we can, and do, rationalize anything we wish.

This is highly problematic, because we can get so far off the path of reality that we eventually end up snuffing ourselves out.

There is a universal morality that exists in all successful religions, and in fact, there is not one society that has ever prospered which was not attached to religion. Of course, the most successful religions are not "correct" because of what they preach. They are successful because they create a society which prospers and dominates the societies around them. Us guys on this board could create a philosophy to live by and it wouldn't be but a fart in a hurricane... however, if our philosophy causes us to breed more than others, and to become more prosperous than others, in a few hundred years, our philosophy will begin to dominate others... (like, the feminists who insist on having only one child at 40 years old when their wombs are rusty and filled with cob webs, will have no chance of competing if everyone around them had 8 kids who grow up believing an opposite philosophy. Feminists are preaching a death culture. Christians who "go forth and multiply," are preaching a life culture.)

Now, back to this "universal morality" which exists in all successful religions/societies.

It is the 10 commandments.

The 10 commandments are not specific to Christianity, but are universal to all successful societies.

I request you stop for a moment, and contemplate what the 10 commandments are telling us.

They are instructing us not to live as animals.

The 10 commandments are the anti-thesis to animal existence.

It is about mankind using his cognitive ability to create a "relative truth" which he places over the "absolute truth." Our brain has the ability to convince ourselves that jumping off a cliff won't harm us, but the absolute truth always kicks our ass in the end. (Btw, this is why there is such a debate over Creationism & Evolution - Evolution allows for an ever changing truth, which gives Humanists - the religion we now live under - the rational for socially engineering humans to their will - I don't really care to debate evolution, but I am only saying this is why all leftists subscribe to evolution, like in the USSR - because it gives them the right to alter the future condition of mankind, whereas the Bible does not give you that right).

Animals do not take care of their parents. They abandon them completely. This is still ingrained within us. Parents love their children and sacrifice for them to ensure their genes pass on through the ages, but, it is not biological for animals to care for their parents, nor to give up resources to them. However, being "anti-animals" and caring for our parents has enabled humans to live longer and longer. (We should be dying at around mid-life crisis - which is where most "savages" died in the past, like the American Indians, Polynesians, and so on - all following unsuccessful religions which became dominated by successful ones).

It is animal like to kill and steal. Animals do this daily. We do not. But, we still have those instincts within us and we actively suppress them. After all, survival of the fittest does not lead to a successful society. Why would you bother to grow a crop of corn if I would just show up in the fall with a gun and steal your corn from you? Survival of the fittest. I would eat and live and you would die. And no-one would bother growing corn.

Animals covet their neighbour's wives. But doing so destroys the family unit.

Even when we get outside of the 10 Commandments, we find things that are obviously condemning animal behaviour. Look at sexuality. I don't care if you want to hump everything that moves - that is natural. However, what we are finding is that it is kinda like drunk driving. Just because one person drinks and drives, doesn't make the roads inherently dangerous. But, if EVERYONE drinks and drives, there is going to be mass chaos. And so it is that with the entirety of our society screwing everything that moves, STD's are infecting us at a stupendous rate (30% of caucasion women and nearly 50% of black women, have either HPV or herpes). And the result? Well, this is not talked about AT ALL, but not only are we not having enough children, but we are losing our ability to reproduce. STD's lead to mass infertility... and that will eventually snuff us out as a civilization. Maybe sexual morality and monogamy has purposes that we do not recognize until it is far too late to do anything about it? We will indeed soon be "wiped from the face of the earth" just like those people in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Following our animal desires leads to "anti-civilization," and cultural death. Humans will go on, like animals will, but civilization will not.

The "universal morality" instructs us NOT to be animals.

The US Founding Fathers recognized much the same thing in humans, which is why they created a Constitution - something which cannot be changed easily. The Constitution is simply a smaller version of the Biblical function, which is to create absolute truths. They fully recognized that human society has a natural tendency to simply rationalize away the things they do not wish to be true. "Natural" humanity has the ability to eternally change the truth to be whatever is most convenient at the time. But, no matter how much we convince ourselves that we can fly by flapping our arms, the ground at the bottom of the cliff will trump our "rational" brain every time. We must have certain absolutes, and we can live freely within those absolute goalposts, but without those immoveable goalposts, we will kill ourselves... everytime... eventually.

The ability of humans to "reason" is obviously our greatest tool - but, without properly tempering that ability, the ability to reason can also be extremely deadly and "anti-human."

It is certainly possible to find absolutes without the use of religion. We are, in fact, doing it right now.

But, in order for society to be successful, we must have most of the people adhering to a similar system, otherwise known as cultural hegemony.

Most people are simply too busy living, or too busy being idiots to explore and discover absolutes. Most philosophers are, in fact, seeking absolutes without the use of religion... but, I don't meet too many modern versions of Socrates when I step out the door. I meet mostly idiots. You cannot expect millions of people to subscribe to a particular philosophy "just because." Therefore, we have religion so we don't have to explain all of these intricacies to the masses of idiots. "Just do it, you dopes! Before we die!" That is the function of religion.

As per, the specific topic of this thread, which is why women disrespect men so much... think of it as an animal like function.

It is in a woman's best interests to disrespect men, take their resources, and then discard the male and get knocked up by the next guy. Women have only 400 eggs, and to have all of your eggs fertilized by one male is "anti-animal." Nature would dictate that each time she gets knocked up, it is by a different male, so as to ensure some genetic diversity. This is the only real difference between male and female "mate choosing." It is in both genders "best animal interests" to have sex with multiple partners. The only difference is that a woman's best interest is to slow the process down, so she can leech resources off the male while she has young children, or is pregnant and vulnerable. As soon as that is over, her biological best interest is to find another male. It is not called "serial monogamy." That is an oxymorn created by dopes. It is "rotating polyandry." (Rotation of the "important male" in a woman's life). It is also anti-civilization, because it removes men from children, and thus, removes male's desire to create a structured and coherent society.

Women did not "become like this" by some magic.

Woman have ALWAYS been *****y and hostile to males. And they always will be.

Now we are getting to the real crux of the issue. There was too much good stuff there for me to highlight just one part. I was about to say that all this talk of the old brain and higher-level brain really wasn't where the answer lies for this topic. For one thing the base brain mostly would drive for unrestrained, unselective sex with the opposite sex, but that's not really the issue here. The issue here is the value of one type behavior and character vs. another.

Anyway, the issue is really one of character ethics vs. personality ethics, moreso than the basal drives vs. the higher order brain. In the past, whether through the ten commandments, religion, the golden rule, etc there was an importance placed on the value of character ethics to maintain a harmonious, pleasant and prosperous society. What we have mostly today and what women especially are ascribing to is a personality ethic. Basically with personality ethics it doesn't matter what you objectively do and don't do, it's "all how you do it and how you appear doing it". For all intents and purposes this is really no different in outcomes of having no ethics or restraint on your socially destructive urges.

This is what I meant when I said people, women especially, fill their "minds" with nothing or garbage instead of ideas of character and values that make life more pleasant for the most people. They reject absolutes and replace it with subjectivity. Then, really the only absolutes they are left with to guide them is the drives of their basal brain.

 

[ketostix]

If women have no sense of morality themselves, then they deserve no rights. How can i trust them to vote based on the benefit of society if they care about the needs of no one but themselves?

The real problem is that men actually buy into this nonsense that women are equal. They are not. They are not smarter, but they are weaker. How is being not smarter and not as strong as men being equal?

I tend to agree with you. Women use to be viewed as essentially children and were under the authority of their father and then their husband. I'm not saying that it has to be taking back to that level, but women are no longer accountable in anyway to any one man, whether it's her date, boyfriend, husband, boss, etc. If you don't acquiesce to her demands she can just discard you for some other guy that will. Women are only accountable to society as a whole, and we know how little society as whole holds them accoutable. So until women are viewed by society like they use to be as children OR women are held to standards of accoutability, any one man has no leverage over any woman.

I mean imagine if society gave children carte blanche and the economic freedom to do what ever children "wanted to do". How would a parent discipline or have any leverage over a child? They wouldn't, the child would just defy the parent or discard the parent. Neither can any individual male "discipline" and "train" a woman without any leverage and authority.

 

[STR8UP]

Another excellent post, Rob.

It's men that put up with this BS. I tell a woman quick, don't set at my table unless you are willing to bring something to it......

Some men are doing way too much out here. Be a man, do what you want, let your nuts hang and watch what happen.

I mean this with the utmost respect, but you have to be a black man. There's just something about the way you guys can lay it out in simple, easy to understand terms when it comes to matters dealing with women. Nothing but the truth.

I definitely agree....let your nuts hang and the rest will fall into place.

Okay, though if I was older, what would that mean exactly? Make a stronger argument? I'm not sure on what you mean if I was jophil's age making a similar argument.

I'm just giving you sh!t man. I know you're a younger guy and at least you don't pretend to know it all...that's a good thing.

jophil is older and should know better. And he gets extra points taken away because I know he's smart :moon:

My argument still stands as before that if even though we have the two desires, do you only see your business that you pursue and your ambitions as only to survive and and to attract women? Do you not enjoy your business or your hobbies? Do you not enjoy the company of your friends? My argument is while our primary motivators is to survive and reproduce, does that makes everything else a rationalization?

It makes everything else a means to an end, the end being food on the table, a roof over your head, and warm pink hole to deposit your baby batter into.

Does that make your enjoyment in your projects (like that art you are working on I recall), the fun with your friends, and your curiosity that leads to your post your adventures here to analyze, not real? Does looking from the other philosophies, ie the pursuit of happiness, not real?

There is a theory i read recently that proposes that art developed simply as another form of "peacocking" for males. Notice that the vast, VAST majority of influential artists have been men?

No one is proposing that things aren't "real", we are simply proposing that there is a lot more to these motivations than simple happiness, altruism, etc. It all can be traced back to the root motivators which is our desire to survive and reproduce.

The problem is today that society is so complex it's easy to get off track thinking that the things we do have some kind of higher meaning, and the fact that we are "higher beings" allows us to transcend our animalistic tendencies, when in fact it's nothing more than the forest being so big that we can no longer make out the individual trees as we fly over top of them in a 747. The trees are still there and always will be, we have simply tkaen on a different point of view that makes it look as if we are ABOVE it all, and we are no longer able to make out the bark, the branches, the trunk, etc due to the fact that from up here it all looks like one big green carpet.

As such, you noticed that wives are disrespecting her husband by going out late into the night and then lied to him. Is that more to bad character or women's nature? Nature gives her the desire survive and reproduce which is then manifested into her actions, but since she is still a conscious being, just with dispositions to certain ways, then it is still in her control. While not completely in conscious control and she may rationalize her actions, she is aware and still choose to do such actions.

Again, no one is debating that women do not have a choice. We all have a rational brain (including women) that allows us to make conscious decisions that might dontradict what is biologically in our best interest for the short term. Wwhat I am saying is that women ARE behaving poorly as a function of biology, it is simply at the expense of men and society as a whole. They THINK they are acting in their evolutionary best interest when in fact it is NOT. However, they cannot see this. But rest assured, men will eventually slap that sh!t down like a pimp slaps his h0, because in the grand scheme of things, all must be equalized by nature.

Now str8up, if you disagree with me, I do try to keep an open mind. I do agree that biology and nature affect us much and manifest in us in many ways, but I give contest that we should view all actions as such, there's more reasons "closer" to the actions that should be given attention too.

What we are saying is that the details are inconsequential when the argument is about "what drives us", because when you trace it back to the root cause you always get the same answer. You are trying to complicate things to preserve the illusion that we are some kind of god-like beings as opposed to just a smarter more developed animal species.

We eat, sh!t, fukk, and die just like apes and dogs. the fact that we have a brain capable of building skyscrapers means our race will probably ultimately send itself into extinction, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Victory Unlimited]

Yo Str8up,


I wasn't addressing you directly before-----I was actually responding to the post directly above mine (mainly offering an answer to TheDeparted's question). My response, specifically, was in answer to "what it takes" to be successful in a relationship should you ever choose to decide on ONE woman.

I have found that all healthy, mutually satisfying, successful relationships require at bare minimum, a definition, a recognition, and a continuous DEFENSE of the line of RESPECT between the people involved.

Next time, maybe I'll try to remember to quote the specific person I'm addressing before I post. Because somehow posting something that would annoy you was not my intention.

So with my respect for you being what it is, I will take the time to address your comments and questions.

On the subject of Absolutes.

I have found that life is indeed filled with very few nondebatable absolutes. Like, "if your ass will live...then your ass will die". Of course there are some others, but those are a few that I think most people can agree on.

Now, what some people call "absolutes", really are what other people just call hard core, resolute DECISIONS that they make to protect his or her personal space or situation-specific boundaries. Many men who shy away from making these quality decisions (decisions they feel strongly about) and sticking to them are ones that have an inability or an unwillingness to do so.

Maybe it's out of fear.

Maybe it's out of political correctness.

Or maybe it's out of a unceasing desire to take in more and more information. But I have found that there's always a law of diminishing return at work for those who don't step up and choose sides, or develop and hold fast to a strong opinion on something.

What I've seen happen in real life and on internet message boards is that these particular types become ensnared in a trap of their OWN making-----it's called ANALYSIS PARALYSIS.

These men are stuck. And the longer they STAY stuck, their quest for knowledge turns into confusion. Then their confusion metamorphasizes either into bitterness, apathy, or unneccessarily and unhealthily LOWERED expectations-----in whatever area of life that they happen to be focused.

Of course the cowards and the ass-kissing PC crowd get what they deserve for being gutless. But it's the guys who overthink themselves to stagnancy and unhappiness that concern me. Because they usually can eventually snap out of it----and make their lives better BY making choices.

So again, words like "all", "never", and "cannot" are words used mostly by men who understand that they themselves are the ones who DECIDE the "absolutes" of their own lives.

Not society, culture, other people's beliefs, etc.

So, even if the day comes when they deem it advantageous to change their views on some things, it is STILL these men themselves who will DECIDE what the "rules of engagement" are for their particular lives. A man is only as "ON PURPOSELY" successful in his life as a result of the tough decisions he's willing to make.

Also, a man is only as powerful as his sphere of influence is large. And the size of a man's sphere of influence, in the very beginning, is drawn and measured by simply DECIDING what is acceptable to him and what is not.

So, acceptable behavior from women, he ALLOWS to remain within his presence--------while behavior from women that is NOT acceptable----he keeps, or THROWS OUT of his personal perimeter.

Now, some would call this concept acting "nobly" in an attempt to maybe diminish it. But the truth of the matter is that protecting your sphere of influence (also known as respecting YOURSELF) is not a noble act-----it's an act of necessity for ANY man who wants to continue to live FREE from the inconsiderate behavior, frequent mood swings, and the flagrantly aggressive disrespect of other people.

A boy is male by birth. But as he grows, he becomes a MAN by choice.

A man SHOULD always seek to understand more and more about the world around him, and he SHOULD take into account many different views and opinions before he makes quality decisions for his life. But what a man does NOT do is bow his Knee to situations, circumstances, or people (WOMEN, specifically) who seek to fill his life with DRAMA instead of PEACE.

A fuller, more internally peaceful life is the reward for most men who realize that they shouldn't waste their energy seeking to control women. But rather, instead, their energy is put to far better use by learning to know and love themselves FIRST-----then, vetting all the women that they engage to determine if they are good enough candidates to be "elected" into their lives.

Where I come from...this is what men do.

Where I come from, men tend to be MADE from this "sterner" type of stuff.

And where I come from, those who aren't "born" with it, but eventually REALIZE that they don't have it, make a conscious DECISION to build within themselves this type of steely resolve.

THIS, is the type of man I am.



Soldier on. :yes:

 

[puma183]

Hi guys, I hope you don't mind me butting in, but I am the guy who wrote the articles at "No Ma'am" linked further up the page. I seen your link and have been following along.

Hi Rob! Welcome to the Don Juan Forum. I said it on Lee's board, but I will say it here again: Excellent article on Marriage=Fraud.

 

[TheHumanist]

What we are saying is that the details are inconsequential when the argument is about "what drives us", because when you trace it back to the root cause you always get the same answer. You are trying to complicate things to preserve the illusion that we are some kind of god-like beings as opposed to just a smarter more developed animal species.

First, I have to say I resent the claim that I'm merely trying to perserve the idea that we are some god-like beings as my motivator to disagree with you. I disagree with you based on ideaology, not because of my ego.

We eat, sh!t, fukk, and die just like apes and dogs. the fact that we have a brain capable of building skyscrapers means our race will probably ultimately send itself into extinction, nothing more, nothing less.

The fact we have a brain capable of building skyscrapers means our race have the potential to do the opposite as well. Again, as I said too, we are not beings given the ability that completely seperate us men from the animals, I actually said that we are only degrees in abilities different. I said that just above the direct address to you, in address to Rob's post. So to say I'm trying to argue to keep the god-like entity alive is not correct, right above I said are just smater animals too.

Again, I was trying to argue earlier, is our motivation, as for example as your art project, while can be view as more peacocking. I would imagine you derived much enjoyment from the hobby. I'm not trying to complicate, I'm trying to say that the details have weight too, even it may add some complication.

 

[jophil28]

Your entire issue revolves around the premise that when I state that "nature trumps nurture" that I am trying to justify women's poor behavior, when I am doing nothing of the sort.

I miss those signature STR8 posts from you ...

" This 22 year old bisexual nympho was all over me last Saturday night at my place. She wanted me real bad inspite of the two ripped hunks who escorted her to my bash which was paid for by my latest client and cost him $40k, but is was a "business investment " for him...
All my girls were there getting crazy jealous over the nympho's flirting with me .. She gave me tons of IOI' s all night and insisted that we hang out so I gave her a call last night to meet at Moonbucks tonight but she stood me up...FLAKED !!
But I guess that is the "nature" of woman..who can expect any more from those emotional dwarfs...but I am not being judgemental mind you because that would not be nice...just saying.
WHy do you guys think she flaked..?"

More of these please anecdotes ,dude. They were great value.. at least THEY were entertaining.

 

[slaog]

This is a debate about strength of character. A person with a strong character will not let any emotions or feelings control them. Certainly if that person has standards he/she'll stick to those standards.


Lets approach this from another angle. I believe in the law of attraction 100%. You get what you focus on. Not that it's easy it isn't but generally it's true.


A brain is nothing more then a tool for the real you to explore the world. From a young age as you begin to grow up you will begin to see things in a certain way. Your brain (which is like a muscle as somebody mentioned) will adopt to the way you see the world. Yes thats right you're brain adapts to you and not you behaving in a certain way because your brain is a certain way.


Take alcoholics for example. Most people presume that because they drank too much the brain got used to the alcohol and eventually it started to want it more and more. People presume that it's the brains fault but no it isn't. It's the persons fault for actually focusing on alcohol and nothing else. The person made alcohol the center of his/her thoughts and that persons reality adapted accordingly. The brain got trained to want alcohol.


Likewise a person who cheats usually cheats because that person was thinking about it. The more it's thought about the more likely it is to happen. In the 50's if a woman had a chance to cheat she would have been shocked at the thought of it. Nowadays it's all over the gutter media about celebraties cheating.


Likewise if we think all women want to cheat or will easily cheat then we're more likely to end up with a cheater and then probably make excuses like it's in the womans nature.