Reconsidering sexual repression?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Reconsidering sexual repression

The New York Post has an interesting article up on the price of sex. Summary; more women are giving it up sooner. Between a shortage of men who are marry-up material, competition from other women, and porn, withholding sex to get commitment is no longer a workable strategy Tellingly the article says “those who don’t discount sex say they can’t seem to get anyone to ‘pay’ their higher price. Consequently, younger women are doing an awful lot of first-date or even no-date ****ing, and the marriage rate is steadily dropping.

The author doesn’t think like a science-fiction fan and encyclopedic synthesist, but I do – so a really alarming second-order consequence jumped out at me. But before I get to that, some historical perspective.



Before 1960, the price of sex was held fairly high by fear of pregnancy and social stigmatization. Then came the Pill; fear of pregnancy receded and social stigmatization of unwed birth effectively collapsed with it. But in the absence of these restraints, we found out something interesting; women, as a group, want nookie now more than is good for their marriage prospects. That is, the operation of female desire is poorly matched to their most effective reproductive strategy – they’re too easily pulled into casual sex and behaviors they can fool themselves aren’t pure hedonism.

I could go off on a speculative tear about how humans ended up with such miswiring. That would take us on a ramble through evolutionary bio and might even generate an interesting theory or two. But that would be a distraction, because the most interesting consequences of this observation aren’t in the past but in the future.

The first difficult thing to accept, after the sexual revolution, is this: sexual repression and the double standard weren’t arbitrary forms of cruelty that societies ended up with by accident. They were functional adaptations. By raising the clearing price that women charged for sex, they actually increased female bargaining power and raised the marriage rate.

Most people can process that one without wincing. But this next one is a hot potato: the ideology of sexual equality made the problem a lot worse in two different ways. The obvious one was that it encouraged women to believe they could and should be able to act like men without negative consequences – including rising to male levels of promiscuity. The less obvious, but perhaps in the long run more damaging consequence, was that it collided with hypergamy.

Women are hypergamous. They want to marry men who are bigger, stronger, higher-status, a bit older, and a bit brighter than they are. This is massively confirmed by statistics on actual marriages; only the “a bit brighter” part is even controversial, and most of that controversy is ideological posturing.

OK, so what happens when women get educated, achieve economic equality, etcetera? Their pool of eligible hypergamic targets shrinks; the princess marrying the swineherd is a fairytale precisely because it’s so rare. More women seeking hypergamy from a higher baseline means the competition for eligible males is more intense, and womens’ ability to withold sex vanishes even supposing they want to. Thus, college campuses today, and plunging marriages rate tomorrow.

The question becomes: what are we going to give up? Family formation? Sexual equality? Sexual liberty? (By sexual equality I mean the presumption that women should be legally, economically, and educationally equal to men. By sexual liberty I mean both an absence of formal legal sanctions and an absence of guilt and psychological repression.) It looks very much as through we can’t have all three of those sustainably, and (this is the thought that really disturbs me) we may not even get to have more than one.

If we give up family formation it’s game over; we’ll be outbred by cultures that don’t. So that’s off the table. Following out the logic, the demographic future will belong to cultures that give up either sexual liberty or sexual equality, or both.

But those options aren’t symmetrical. Because, remember, the problem with today’s sexual economics is not symmetrical. It’s not women who are bailing out of the marriage market in droves, it’s men. Accordingly (as the author of the NY Post recognizes) the odds of rolling back sexual liberty are close to nil. Men don’t have to play on those terms for fundamental bioenergetic reasons (release of semen is cheap), and women post-Pill are demonstrating an unwillingness to try to make them. Because, you know, more sex (see “miswiring”, above).

I am led to a conclusion I don’t like. That is: Sexual equality is unstable. If women can’t buy marriage with sex, they’ll have to bid submission instead. This tactic also combines well with hypergamic desire – if the mean social power of men is automatically higher than that of women, more potential pairings constitute marrying up.

I don’t have a submissive wife and never wanted one. I like strong and independent women. It therefore horrifies me to reach the conclusion that sexually repressive patriarchies may after all be a better deal for most womens’ reproductive success than the relative equality they have now is. But that’s where the logic leads.

[bawang]

thats what happens when you get too much power, too much riches, too much happiness.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I don't know if I agree with ANY part of what the writer said, bu he does raise a concern I have heard a few times already:
the "fear" that women being sexually liberated and deciding to not have kids, may cause the "democratic and progressive" socities to be "over run" by the more "totalitarian and oppressive" ones.

By sheer numbers is by nothing else.

Not so much by invasion or military action, but by imigration and "political control" of majority parties.

[David Jamieson]

If you feed a dog and help it prosper, it won't turn on you and be dissatisfied.
This is what distinguishes them from humans for the most part nest to the whole being a dog thing...

also, authoritarian rule is coming and the order gets shorter every day.
democracy can't work very well in divided communities.

all of north america is politically divided between right and left and the moderates are a rare breed. It is much easier to implement authoritarianism in this environment than it is to do it in a true democracy.

[Hebrew Hammer]

I don't know if I agree with ANY part of what the writer said, bu he does raise a concern I have heard a few times already:
the "fear" that women being sexually liberated and deciding to not have kids, may cause the "democratic and progressive" socities to be "over run" by the more "totalitarian and oppressive" ones.

By sheer numbers is by nothing else.

Not so much by invasion or military action, but by imigration and "political control" of majority parties.

There is only one thing left to do...and do it often! I'll do my part starting tonight Sanjuro Ronin.

New Rules:

1) If she's ugly, leave early. Leave ugly kids for the oppressive totalitarian types.

2) If she's below your standards, lower your standards. I'm doing it, repeatedly, for democracy!

3) Above all else, remember that any chick looks good with your **** in her mouth!

All of this during the high holy days...I truly am blessed.

[sanjuro_ronin]

There is only one thing left to do...and do it often! I'll do my part starting tonight Sanjuro Ronin.

New Rules:

1) If she's ugly, leave early. Leave ugly kids for the oppressive totalitarian types.

2) If she's below your standards, lower your standards. I'm doing it, repeatedly, for democracy!

3) Above all else, remember that any chick looks good with your **** in her mouth!

All of this during the high holy days...I truly am blessed.

L'Shanah Tovah to you my brother !
:D

[Hebrew Hammer]

Thanks Chief! Have a Yom Tov yerself.

[SoCo KungFu]

I understand where the author is coming from. But I have to disagree with a large majority of the article.

First off, it wasn't but about a year or two ago there were a number of articles running that were illustrating the exact opposite. That with the new found power among females (job advancement, income, etc.), women (at least in western society) are experiencing less PRESSURE to marry up. And the result being, more and more white collar women were dating and marrying blue collar. So, if true, that pretty much takes the rug out from under the author right there.

But on a more convoluted level. The author is viewing the issue from the typical western lenses. I disagree with the entire concept of what is a "proper" family/marriage to begin with. The author is mixing concepts, social "fitness" and true, biological fitness (the ability to survive and reproduce). While there are some overlaps, they are not the same and that is how the author is presenting the argument. But I guess that's to be expected. True biologists/anthropologists don't really write coffee break articles for the Post.

Aside from the whole sexual equality bit, the author is making an argument that the (i'm assuming as its not explicitly stated) western idea of the nuclear family is being lost and that will cause our society to be out bred. First off, we were a minority in the world to begin with. Secondly, there is no real evidence that the nuclear family is any more beneficial than other family structures that exist. The ultimate goal is to raise a properly function (ie mentally stable, productive, intelligent, etc.) member of society to carry on the species. And to a secondary task, personal culture. But this idea of mother/father, nuclear family etc. is unnecessary. All that is needed is a home to provide for the physical needs (food, shelter, etc.) and loving "parents" to provide the emotional. Humans have been doing that for thousands of years before legal contracts ever came into the fold.

As to the sex part. Women have the same biological functions as men. Half of fitness is reproduction. And that takes more than just a man and some seed. The other half is the female. And imagine that, women are just as ***** as we are. Honestly, I think its a good thing. Most women view sexual prowess to be just an important issue of a relationship as any other. If its important, might as well find out before you tie the knot. That goes both ways. Some women are just lazy ****s.

Anyways, this response is all over the place. Been writing lab reports all day and my brain is fried. Basically the three issues: Sexual liberty and sexual equality, in this case are not mutually exclusive. Family formation was a matter of cultural selection and not all cultures form families the same. The nuclear family is actually a limitation as far as numbers go. The main benefit was economic.

The author says its the men who are avoiding marriage. But there are also studies showing that its not gender based at all. Simply, more people are becoming educated. More people are placing family as a lower priority. And there's a link between education and socioeconomic success with a choice to abstain from procreation (assuming is the main driving force to commit to marriage). Simply put, more people are deciding there's already enough people in the world.

Yeah that's a big wall of random text. And I didn't even go into any biology in the whole mix....

[Lee Chiang Po]

I watched a documentary once that was done in the UK. It was called the Bluebird syndrome I think. It states that women marry a man that is easy to manipulate and that is a good provider for her nest. She quite often goes down the street in search of genes though, and through dna tests, about 35% of most children are fathered by someone other than the marriage partner. Even though he is dad and pays the dues. This makes a profound statement about women in general.
A woman that leaves her man will never do so without somewhere to go or someone to go to. There is always another man involved. She can demonize you in order to ease her own conscience. They can fall in love just to make it right and to remove the stigmatism of being a **** or *****. If a man thinks he knows a woman well, he is in for a rude awakening one day. You can love a woman, make her life grand, see to her every need, just don't put your trust in her.

[bawang]

why are you such a negative nancy

[Hebrew Hammer]

why are you such a negative nancy

He raises an interesting question...some of the finest women I've ever known are sexually repressed...or were hehe. :D

[David Jamieson]

I would like to see a link to something referencing that data and how it's broken down. Because I suspect that with a number such as 35% we are talking about a step father as opposed to a woman not holding to fidelity.


After all, there are three kinds of lies.

lies, dam lies and statistics.

[SoCo KungFu]

I would like to see a link to something referencing that data and how it's broken down. Because I suspect that with a number such as 35% we are talking about a step father as opposed to a woman not holding to fidelity.


After all, there are three kinds of lies.

lies, dam lies and statistics.

Saw a similar study in the US. But the numbers were far less dramatic. Somewhere between 2-5% were children conceived of extra marital affairs. Even those numbers are suspect though. This kind of data is the type that has to be divulged willfully. I wouldn't trust the numbers either way.

[RenDaHai]

The worst form of discrimination is trying to make equal things that are not.

I don't like the idea of the contraceptive pill. Hormones change behaviour, regularly changing your hormones changes personality.

But all that aside I think reduced birth-rate is probably a natural progression as a society advances. It is kind of scary to think we will soon be so hugely outnumbered by people from lesser societies. We could start cloning.....

Kind of makes you glad for China's 1 child policy huh....

[mawali]

I watched a documentary once that was done in the UK. It was called the Bluebird syndrome I think. It states that women marry a man that is easy to manipulate and that is a good provider for her nest. She quite often goes down the street in search of genes though, and through dna tests, about 35% of most children are fathered by someone other than the marriage partner. Even though he is dad and pays the dues. This makes a profound statement about women in general.
A woman that leaves her man will never do so without somewhere to go or someone to go to. There is always another man involved. She can demonize you in order to ease her own conscience. They can fall in love just to make it right and to remove the stigmatism of being a **** or *****. If a man thinks he knows a woman well, he is in for a rude awakening one day. You can love a woman, make her life grand, see to her every need, just don't put your trust in her.

Roger that!
That being said, respect, honour and dignity should not be eschewed to satisfy base goals.

[David Jamieson]

The longer I live, the more I come to appreciate the aspect of me that is naught but mere animal.

Makes perspectives very simple. :)

[mickey]

Greetings,

The "W.H.O.R.E." (an androgynous term) has always been here. Don't forget it takes two. In the last 35 years or so there has been a manipulated shift in social attitudes to loosen sexual boundaries throught he encouragement of same sex relationships. The goal of which is population control. So, if you are in a situation where hetero women outnumber hetero men you will get that kind of behavior that sanjuro ronin mentions from that article.

On a metaphysical level, the rise of feminine energy that is hitting this planet is AMAZING. It is affecting everyone in ways depending on their awareness.

mickey

[bawang]

On a metaphysical level, the rise of feminine energy that is hitting this planet is AMAZING.
i dont think its amazing. i think its a disgrace.

[sanjuro_ronin]

On a metaphysical level, the rise of feminine energy that is hitting this planet is AMAZING. It is affecting everyone in ways depending on their awareness.

mickey

Gaaaayyyyyy !!!!

[bawang]

i miss the days when men acted like men, like the mongols and mao ze dong.

[David Jamieson]

I think there are a lot of dangerous and downright stupid mindforms being projected outwards about women.

For one thing, there seems to be this idea that women's equality means they are the "same" as men in all these different ways.

as an example, females in movies are portrayed as physically more powerful than males quite often. This is ridiculous. You know it, I know it but a lot of impressionable minds out there haven't a clue.

I saw the movie Colombiana the other night. Interesting and completely implausible series of events. Just downright stupid to the point where it made an otherwise interesting tale of revenge into an utter pile of shyte.

women aren't men and men aren't women and leaning one into the other on a social construct is mere deviance in my opinion.

we have to celebrate the differences and find the egalitarianism where it really is.
Soft, overtly liberal politically correct garbage makes the world stagger these days.

I pretty much refuse to practice that. Facts are facts.

Also, I can't believe the new 3 Musketeers has cast a women in the D'Artagnan character's role. yeesh...

[mickey]

sanjuro ronin,

You are correct about that. It can result in that as well.

One thing that I have observed about the ho mo sexual community is the pervasive presence of the feminine; even amongst those hard core types. The feminine presence, there, is greater than in the mainstream. If you look at the colors they use, purple, pink, magenta-- these are vaginal colors.



mickey

[bawang]

i am manly. i dont wear vaginer colors. i wear penus colors.

[sanjuro_ronin]

You guys worry about colours too much:
http://hurricanevanessa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/tinte.gif

[David Jamieson]

There are 7 colours in a rainbow.
There are seven colours in the system of Chakras.
These colours match those of the rainbow.
Chakras represent allegorically all the features of being human from a every ancient and every modern perspecttive.

gay folk are people too. They are as normal a human being as you or me. They aren't like you in their behaviours, but they are born, live, eat, bleed, die just like anyone else and that's good enough for me.

I don't beef on chicks because they wear panties and bake cakes and like the d1ck, why should I bag on gays for it?

As for what we "observe" of the gay community, most of that has already been filtered through the subjectivity of someone else. You wanna really know what gay folk are like, go befriend and hang out with some sometime. Because there is no substitute for real experience when it comes to knowing what's what. :)

[SoCo KungFu]

I don't like the idea of the contraceptive pill. Hormones change behaviour, regularly changing your hormones changes personality.

You are aware there are a number of women that use pills to CONTROL their hormone levels, right?.........


But all that aside I think reduced birth-rate is probably a natural progression as a society advances. It is kind of scary to think we will soon be so hugely outnumbered by people from lesser societies. We could start cloning.....

Kind of makes you glad for China's 1 child policy huh....

Define "lesser societies."

You act as if limiting population is a bad thing. And it has nothing to do with society advancing, unless you are referring to people that choose to put career progression higher in priority than family (a behavior not as often seen in less developed countries). However biologically, every organism on the planet has a tendency to self regulate population expansion. Humans, are seemingly in fact, the worst at exhibiting this trait. Its a vital element in proper resource partitioning to ensure ultimate survival of a species (and the community it should inhabit).

[SoCo KungFu]

sanjuro ronin,

You are correct about that. It can result in that as well.

One thing that I have observed about the ho mo sexual community is the pervasive presence of the feminine; even amongst those hard core types. The feminine presence, there, is greater than in the mainstream. If you look at the colors they use, purple, pink, magenta-- these are vaginal colors.



mickey

And yet pink used to be a color reserved for men...

[SoCo KungFu]

Seriously we're bringing ****sexuality into this topic now? I've already, in the past couple years, posted about 2 or 3 dozen anthropological/sociological studies in various threads on this subject, that detail just why this western conception of ****sexuality is not universal, conceptually incorrect, biologically misunderstood and just by and large utter BS. And I really don't care to go drudge them up again. But to summarize:

1) ****sexuality is totally, utterly, completely natural.

2) There is no god smiting these heathens. And if there is, he/she/it is an idiot for creating over 1500 species with scientifically documented ****sexual behavior. Tell me, do giraffes and mountain goats go to hell?

3) If so many different organisms retain such behavior, it must then have some species wide survival advantage, because nature doesn't waste energy on useless sh!t. My guess, it has something to do with adapting to limited resources, mates, etc. And ensuring that the most fit individuals are the ones reproducing.

4) The western idea of ****sexuality is not even existent in many cultures. There are some cultures in the world which EVERY member of their society exhibits this behavior. Some even have religious beliefs necessitating the acts. To them, there is no such thing as "gay."


As far as "feminine" energy goes; most of this metaphysical, post-modernist pseudo-philosophy is BS in my book. Now if you want to talk about the real issue of how blurring gender roles seems to be throwing people into a crisis of identity (which is not even necessarily associated with sexual orientation by the way) then fine. But you need to be sure to understand the distinction between gender, a social construct, vs. sex, a biological distinction. Because too many people here, and in general, seem to be misunderstanding the differences.

[RenDaHai]

You are aware there are a number of women that use pills to CONTROL their hormone levels, right?.........


Define "lesser societies."

You act as if limiting population is a bad thing. And it has nothing to do with society advancing, unless you are referring to people that choose to put career progression higher in priority than family (a behavior not as often seen in less developed countries). However biologically, every organism on the planet has a tendency to self regulate population expansion. Humans, are seemingly in fact, the worst at exhibiting this trait. Its a vital element in proper resource partitioning to ensure ultimate survival of a species (and the community it should inhabit).


1. Yes, People also fill themselves with antibiotics or blast themselves with radiation to control disease, but its not a great idea when your healthy.

2. I mean less developed.

3. A lower population is good. It happens because each life is better provided for in a developed country and so is more meticulously planned. Also because people want to spend more time on their own life development as you said. Its very rare to have say 9 kids in England but common in some less developed countries. So as countries advance their population increase slows.

[wenshu]

I blame feminism.

[David Jamieson]

I blame feminism.

why? Feminism was a symptom/result of repressed egalitarianism.

It is known that if a society wants to be lifted up and wants to have economic stability and wants to have social progress that it is 100% necessary to have complete equal rights for everyone. Women shouldn't have less opportunities in life such as they are saddled with in other societies.

The good thing is that regardless, we all move forward in time at all times. :)

[bawang]

It is known that if a society wants to be lifted up and wants to have economic stability and wants to have social progress that it is 100% necessary to have complete equal rights for everyone.
that, or brutally conquering another people and slavery.

[David Jamieson]

that, or brutally conquering another people and slavery.

I said progress, not living in the past..or Arabia.

[mickey]

Greetings,

David Jamieson,

With regard to my use of the word "observe" it is not at all a distant observation. One can have 1001 fantastic friends who are gay and still be an observer. You can only cross beyond that by being gay. Otherwise, observation is the limit.

And I am really against taking this thread the gay direction. I was simply bringing in other factors that are influencing the behaviors that sanjuro mentioned.

SoCo:

As far as the feminine and the metaphysical goes, SoCo, it is real. I have experienced it. Some refer to it as kundalini energy. But when the planet gets involved in facilitating this energy, it is quite major. The recent earthquake in Virginia that was felt up the east coast, for example, really widened the channels in my legs to the point where I could feel the soft movements of the Earth's interior. It was beautiful.

mickey

[wenshu]

why? Feminism was a symptom/result of repressed egalitarianism.

It is known that if a society wants to be lifted up and wants to have economic stability and wants to have social progress that it is 100% necessary to have complete equal rights for everyone. Women shouldn't have less opportunities in life such as they are saddled with in other societies.

The good thing is that regardless, we all move forward in time at all times. :)

It is known? By who exactly? Who are you speaking for? Repressed egalitarianism? Economic stability? The ****?

The only thing equal rights leads to is a population of mollycoddled, entitled brats whining about fairness while sitting on their collective complacent fat arse.

Violence, oppression, brutality, cruelty; natural laws that existed long before any notion of 'equal rights'. Greatness of spirit demands struggle, tension, pressure. Without struggle there is no natural impetus for creative thought.

Women shouldn't have any less opportunities? Dude, women have all the power they need; *****. Every single great accomplishment man has ever put his hands to was in some part driven by the biological need to impress some chick he wanted to bang. It could be argued that cultures that go to great lengths to oppress women are doing so in order to try and mitigate this inherent influence over the behavior of men.

[wenshu]

Ok. First of all, the New York Post? Yeah, their editorial stance is definitely not well known for over-exaggerated sensationalist, ideologically driven "reporting".

Original New York Post article;
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/cheap_dates_EnfcHi7NwBAkD3RYMUWv6I

Research it "cites",
http://mjlst.umn.edu/uploads/MO/GL/MOGLj764vkziEW363YSMWA/92_vohs.pdf

Editorial written by Mark Regenrus, another academic featured in the original piece.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042402122.html

[MightyB]

Women have all the power they need; *****. Every single great accomplishment man has ever put his hands to was in some part driven by the biological need to impress some chick he wanted to bang.

(Wipes tear from eye, clapping) Bravo Good Sir! Bravo!

[David Jamieson]

It is known? By who exactly? Who are you speaking for? Repressed egalitarianism? Economic stability? The ****?

The only thing equal rights leads to is a population of mollycoddled, entitled brats whining about fairness while sitting on their collective complacent fat arse.

Violence, oppression, brutality, cruelty; natural laws that existed long before any notion of 'equal rights'. Greatness of spirit demands struggle, tension, pressure. Without struggle there is no natural impetus for creative thought.

Women shouldn't have any less opportunities? Dude, women have all the power they need; *****. Every single great accomplishment man has ever put his hands to was in some part driven by the biological need to impress some chick he wanted to bang. It could be argued that cultures that go to great lengths to oppress women are doing so in order to try and mitigate this inherent influence over the behavior of men.

Well, I never had you figured for a semi-misogynist, but I am on teh side of the argument that is contrary to your statement here.

For instance, from wiki: (please don't bag wiki like some fox moron)

Gender, race, and culture
The existence of different genders, races and cultures within a society is also thought to contribute to economic inequality. Some psychologists such as Richard Lynn argue that there are innate group differences in ability that are partially responsible for producing race and gender group differences in wealth (see also race and intelligence, sex and intelligence) though this assertion is highly controversial. The concept of the gender gap also tries to explain differences in income between genders.
Culture and religion are thought to play a role in creating inequality by either encouraging or discouraging wealth-acquiring behavior, and by providing a basis for discrimination. In many countries individuals belonging to certain racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to be poor. Proposed causes include cultural differences amongst different races, an educational achievement gap, and racism.
Gender
In many countries, there is a gender income gap which favors males in the labor market. For example, the median full-time salary for U.S. women is 77% of that of U.S. men. Several factors other than discrimination may contribute to this gap. On average, women are more likely than men to consider factors other than pay when looking for work, and may be less willing to travel or relocate.[32][33] Thomas Sowell, in his book Knowledge and Decisions, claims that this difference is due to women not taking jobs due to marriage or pregnancy, but income studies show that that does not explain the entire difference. Men are far more likely to engage in dangerous occupations which often pay more than positions desired and sought by women.[34] The U.S. Census's report on the wage gap reported "When we account for difference between male and female work patterns as well as other key factors, women earned, on average, 80 percent of what men earned in 2000… Even after accounting for key factors that affect earnings, our model could not explain all of the differences in earnings between men and women."[35] The income gap in other countries ranges from 53% in Botswana to -40% in Bahrain.[36] In the United States, among women and men who never marry or have children, women make more than men.[32] Additionally, women who work part-time make more on average than men who work part-time.[37]
Gender inequality and discrimination is argued to cause and perpetuate poverty and vulnerability in society as a whole.[38] Household and intra-household knowledge and resources are key influences in individuals' abilities to take advantage of external livelihood opportunities or respond appropriately to threats.[38] High education levels and social integration significantly improve the productivity of all members of the household and improve equity throughout society. Gender Equity Indices seek to provide the tools to demonstrate this feature of poverty.[38] (the wee numbers are citations.

and, I agree with this:
(From Christopher Hitchens)

In many places in the world where there is endemic and widespread poverty, women have essentially zero economic resources. Their only tasks are the raising of children and manual labour in either the home or fields. For these and other reasons women are hugely more likely to be poor than men.

One of the most effective ways that has been found for dealing with this poverty is the encouragement of small businesses. Often this has been done through Microfinance, and it's been widely noted that (for whatever reason) women have been the most effective recipients of Microfinance. Again for whatever reason, these businesses also appear to raise the economic level of the community they live in.

so, i guess you could fixate on pu55y or you could simply observe and make note. :)

[sanjuro_ronin]

It is known? By who exactly? Who are you speaking for? Repressed egalitarianism? Economic stability? The ****?

The only thing equal rights leads to is a population of mollycoddled, entitled brats whining about fairness while sitting on their collective complacent fat arse.

Violence, oppression, brutality, cruelty; natural laws that existed long before any notion of 'equal rights'. Greatness of spirit demands struggle, tension, pressure. Without struggle there is no natural impetus for creative thought.

Women shouldn't have any less opportunities? Dude, women have all the power they need; *****. Every single great accomplishment man has ever put his hands to was in some part driven by the biological need to impress some chick he wanted to bang. It could be argued that cultures that go to great lengths to oppress women are doing so in order to try and mitigate this inherent influence over the behavior of men.

While you do make valid points, lets remember one thing that we tend to NOT want to admit:

Violence, oppression, brutality, cruelty; natural laws that existed long before any notion of 'equal rights'
Perhaps, but the notion of these things being right or wrong has always existed.
You can take the biggest advocate of "survival of the fittest" and the notion that the stronger can and will do all they want and that right and wrong is culturally subjective and one simple things makes that argument fall to pieces:
Even the biggest rapist would think it wrong to BE raped ( or someone he cared for being raped).
So right and wrong have always existed, it is man that has made them subjective.
But even man can only make them subjective to a point and then, even the most ardent naturalist will say "that's not right".

[wenshu]

For instance, from wiki: (please don't bag wiki like some fox moron)
(the wee numbers are citations.
Please Davíð Joðrúnarson, gimme a little credit. Sheesh.




Gender, race, and culture
The existence of different genders, races and cultures within a society is also thought to contribute to economic inequality. Some psychologists such as Richard Lynn argue that there are innate group differences in ability that are partially responsible for producing race and gender group differences in wealth (see also race and intelligence, sex and intelligence) though this assertion is highly controversial. The concept of the gender gap also tries to explain differences in income between genders.
Culture and religion are thought to play a role in creating inequality by either encouraging or discouraging wealth-acquiring behavior, and by providing a basis for discrimination. In many countries individuals belonging to certain racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to be poor. Proposed causes include cultural differences amongst different races, an educational achievement gap, and racism.
Gender
In many countries, there is a gender income gap which favors males in the labor market. For example, the median full-time salary for U.S. women is 77% of that of U.S. men. Several factors other than discrimination may contribute to this gap. On average, women are more likely than men to consider factors other than pay when looking for work, and may be less willing to travel or relocate.[32][33] Thomas Sowell, in his book Knowledge and Decisions, claims that this difference is due to women not taking jobs due to marriage or pregnancy, but income studies show that that does not explain the entire difference. Men are far more likely to engage in dangerous occupations which often pay more than positions desired and sought by women.[34] The U.S. Census's report on the wage gap reported "When we account for difference between male and female work patterns as well as other key factors, women earned, on average, 80 percent of what men earned in 2000… Even after accounting for key factors that affect earnings, our model could not explain all of the differences in earnings between men and women."[35] The income gap in other countries ranges from 53% in Botswana to -40% in Bahrain.[36] In the United States, among women and men who never marry or have children, women make more than men.[32] Additionally, women who work part-time make more on average than men who work part-time.[37]
Gender inequality and discrimination is argued to cause and perpetuate poverty and vulnerability in society as a whole.[38] Household and intra-household knowledge and resources are key influences in individuals' abilities to take advantage of external livelihood opportunities or respond appropriately to threats.[38] High education levels and social integration significantly improve the productivity of all members of the household and improve equity throughout society. Gender Equity Indices seek to provide the tools to demonstrate this feature of poverty.[38]
and, I agree with this:
(From Christopher Hitchens)

In many places in the world where there is endemic and widespread poverty, women have essentially zero economic resources. Their only tasks are the raising of children and manual labour in either the home or fields. For these and other reasons women are hugely more likely to be poor than men.

One of the most effective ways that has been found for dealing with this poverty is the encouragement of small businesses. Often this has been done through Microfinance, and it's been widely noted that (for whatever reason) women have been the most effective recipients of Microfinance. Again for whatever reason, these businesses also appear to raise the economic level of the community they live in.

so, i guess you could fixate on pu55y or you could simply observe and make note. :)



I am on teh side of the argument that is contrary to your statement here.


I am confused about who exactly you are arguing with because all you did was copy and paste statistics about economic gender inequality and I never said it didn't exist.

My point was that maybe inequality has it's purpose and maybe these value judgments about equality and fairness are misguided and actually deleterious to the development of human potential. It is easy for indolent pseudo intellectuals perched comfortably in bourgeois stupor and filled with self righteous indignation justified by narrow, arbitrary, western ideals about equality to bemoan the lack of "progress" in other cultures but make absolutely no contribution whatsoever other than the aforementioned shrill editorialization.


While you do make valid points, lets remember one thing that we tend to NOT want to admit:

Perhaps, but the notion of these things being right or wrong has always existed.
You can take the biggest advocate of "survival of the fittest" and the notion that the stronger can and will do all they want and that right and wrong is culturally subjective and one simple things makes that argument fall to pieces:
Even the biggest rapist would think it wrong to BE raped ( or someone he cared for being raped).
So right and wrong have always existed, it is man that has made them subjective.
But even man can only make them subjective to a point and then, even the most ardent naturalist will say "that's not right".

Right and wrong are arbitrary value judgments of human actions, they have only exisited insofar as human civilization as we know it has existed. Moral values have no origination in the natural world outside of abstract human thought. In the past cruelty was seen as 'right'. As a matter of fact today it is arbitrarily seen as right when it suits the particular purpose of a society despite being otherwise morally abhorrent(the death penalty). At it's most basic it is about the cause and avoidance of pain. My point is essentially that pain is the mechanism that drives development of human potential in the first place.

[wenshu]

My point is essentially that pain is the mechanism that drives development of human potential in the first place.

Needs clarification; it is a part of the mechanism, or perhaps merely symptomatic of the mechanics involved in adaptation.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Right and wrong are arbitrary value judgments of human actions, they have only exisited insofar as human civilization as we know it has existed. Moral values have no origination in the natural world outside of abstract human thought. In the past cruelty was seen as 'right'. As a matter of fact today it is arbitrarily seen as right when it suits the particular purpose of a society despite being otherwise morally abhorrent(the death penalty). At it's most basic it is about the cause and avoidance of pain. My point is essentially that pain is the mechanism that drives development of human potential in the first place.

Cruelty was only seen as right when it happened to the "other guy".
Even the most cruel of people didn't think it right when cruelity happened to them.
Want proof of an absolute moral "right or wrong"?
Ass rape anyone that says "right and wrong" are subjective and ask them after if that was a righteous thing to do.
;)

[wenshu]

Cruelty was only seen as right when it happened to the "other guy".
Even the most cruel of people didn't think it right when cruelity happened to them.
Want proof of an absolute moral "right or wrong"?
Ass rape anyone that says "right and wrong" are subjective and ask them after if that was a righteous thing to do.
;)

Ask a gorilla.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Ask a gorilla.

Saw my pic on Bawangs thread did you?
LOL !

[wenshu]

What some people call rape I call surprise sex.

[sanjuro_ronin]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Sz8PisWOoTE/TBDdn0AACMI/AAAAAAAAAZg/pDLWIGN0xhc/s1600/surprise+butt+sex+rooney.jpg

[David Jamieson]

I still can't find a way around desire causing suffering...

So, I don't see pain as the motivator of change.
Especially not in humans. not great change anyway. Just small malformed changes like orange peeling on a nice paint job. That buffs out with a little effort.

Oh sure, you can gain temporary control over someone by making them suffer, you may even kill them, but the bottom line is that a person or entity or faction cannot consistently maintain repression.

[MightyB]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Sz8PisWOoTE/TBDdn0AACMI/AAAAAAAAAZg/pDLWIGN0xhc/s1600/surprise+butt+sex+rooney.jpg

Too funny! :D

[SoCo KungFu]

SoCo:

As far as the feminine and the metaphysical goes, SoCo, it is real. I have experienced it. Some refer to it as kundalini energy. But when the planet gets involved in facilitating this energy, it is quite major. The recent earthquake in Virginia that was felt up the east coast, for example, really widened the channels in my legs to the point where I could feel the soft movements of the Earth's interior. It was beautiful.

mickey

Widened your channels? :rolleyes:

You felt the earth move in an earthquake....no ****

As for the rest of that superstitious nonsense....the effects of the feminist movement on modern culture are all well documented. You can dispense with the hippy psychobabble.

[mickey]

Hi SoCo Kung Fu,

Your use of the word psychobabble suggests that you do not have these kinds of experiences. I am not looking to create a believer, so I respect your stance. You are cool with me.

mickey