"Hogamus, higamus, men are polygamous"
"Higamus, hogamus, women are monogamous"
Men want Quantity
Women want Quality
I started wondering about some basic things. Marriage, assertiveness, and the natural and 'original' order.
The utopian human (socio-sexual) society if you ask me, should be something like this:
No marriages.
Women living in groups, educating and taking care of the children/youth, and each other.
Men living more or less solitary.
Men can't live together like women can. It's in our genes to be assertive towards each other.
Personally I can't stand the company of other men around me for too long, not even friends(but less so than strangers of course). I enjoy being alone, or in the company of women, because there's a lot less(usually) of the assertive tension 'in the air'.
(I also wonder why so many men value their 'mates' and friends over their wife btw, if you're one of them, tell me why)
As a man, you can really love a/your girl as a 'soulmate'. But no matter what, sooner or later you'll want to fuck some other girl, perhaps maybe only in your head. It's our nature, trying to deny it is bad.
Sooo...
Why do girls in highschool always(usually) like the bullies or richest/most intelligent/toughest/best guy?
I think it is because it's in their genes too. Maybe their nature says (I'm meaning unconsciously) that they'll be pregnant, so they'll need the best guy they can get coz they'll be stuck with the kid.
Assertiveness in nature ... what does it have to do with it.
Chimps and gorillas (and many more animals) have an alpha male. Only the alpha male reproduces(actually the female chimps fake their loyalty and fuck the nice non-alpha males in secret, like someone poste earlier).
Suppose the alpha male stays on top for a couple mating seasons(usually they do). All the offspring will have the male's DNA. When they grow up, the only viable mating options will be with half-siblings, which is exactly what they do, and actually prefer. Chimpansees prefer to mate with their half-siblings over chimps from another group.
But always with a sibling from a different mother - the father is always the same.
Looking at that pattern, one can conclude that the male DNA (and other unknown
factors) are favored to stay in the group, as a sort of inbreeding. The female DNA (and rest) however, should be differentiated.
Thus, assertiveness in males serves the purpose of selecting only the very best.
---
This is speculation, but I think that the promiscue assertiveness mechanism directly influences evolution.
As they say in the army 'be all you can be'.
The alpha male has obviously expanded his limits, and I think that whenever he has done something that could be classified as 'revolutionary', like using a tool to kill his opponent, that at that moment, the semen he produces will have a modified DNA to reflect that intelligent change. I think there is a mechanism that maybe explains why certain species can adapt to their environment in 1 generation. Of course it also happens in the female egg, but I just do think that the mechanism of assertiveness makes it happen quicker, which could also explain why male DNA in humans was proven to (have) mutate(d) a lot faster than in women. The classical evolutional theorem that states DNA comes first before using a said ability (evolved intelligence) isn't correct imo. It's a 2 way interface, the mind influences DNA to 'adapt/mutate' to a change dictated by the mind, and vice-versa.
---
Anyhow, this mechanism is reflected in the bible. Abraham's wife, and only 'viable' offspring, was through his half-sister Sarai. Same happened with Isaak, although it wasn't his half-sister, but close.
(A Jew still isn't a real Jew as long as his mother isn't Jewish btw)
So why is marriage and a 1 on 1 relationship unhealthy? Because it goes in against the natural order.
The natural order says that in a species where the male is physically dominant, the females live in groups, and the males fight each other, so only the very best gets to reproduce.
How did we get into our current society's make up then?
I think somewhere in the pre-civilization past, men acquired intelligence, and being superiour physically, agreed to divide the women among each other, so they didn't have to fight each other as much over women any more, and could concentrate on other things, like conquering others(war). The fact that so many women in the world are still handled as merchandise is a reflection of this.
(No I'm not a feminist)
(This might also be tied in with the emergence of men-only secret societies)
But we're humans no, and we have (higher) feelings of love, compassion, and such, why should we fight each other in assertive drifts?
Well, to go back to the chimps, it is the females there who secretly mate with the nice sensitive chimps. Notice that there it is the females who selected the mating partner, contrary to the classical male enforced sex.
If you stretch it further to human society, one could say that it should be the women who should select who to mate with.
Maybe we reached a state in our evolution where physical agression and assertiveness is the lesser evolving factor, and where the use of intelligence and invention is the motivating principle behind assertive behaviour. And so a men should do his best to try to 'earn' a women's love?
Thus I say:
To minimize war, we should abolish the artificial marriage structure, and women should band together in groups again, and protect each other.
And maybe you think this sounds nazistic/rasict/etc...
But differentiating the male DNA widely must be detrimental to the species, it's not natural. Only the best should reproduce. Granted this doesn't sound really humane, but maybe the future will bring answers to that with gen tech.
So what are your thoughts about this? |
) And when you throw in a bunch of pseudoscience to back up what is essentially the same view on differences between genders in the western world that lame comedians like Tim Allen have built careers on, you just sound like that much more of a fool.
