Archimedes

There's currently one post waiting to be approved which responds to Wuzzums. So I'm going to reply to another user in this one. Why? The relation between Humans, Chimps and Bonobos is closer than those between Indian and African Elefants. We share many behaviors with Bonobos. Here's an excerpt of the book: We also use hunter gatherer tribes to explain other things about human behavior. For example when it comes to nutrition and our desires for sweet food, even though it is maladaptive in our modern world. We just haven't evovled beyond many behavior patterns from hunter gatherer societies. Agriculture just accounts for 5% of the time of human history. It's ignorance to reject the other 95%.

If monogamy is the result of evolution, why does the state need to create incentives to lure people into marriage? Why all this talk about protecting the family unit, when it is supposedly natural human behavior? Doesn't natural behavior imply, that people do it naturally and don't need external incentives? People in Iran get stoned when they cheat on their spouses, and yet, despite those harsh consequences, infidelity continues to occur. Marriage is a recent thing that was invented by the state. Humans lived in multimale-multifemale-mating societies for most of their history. It's hard do determine if people naturally engage in monogamy, or do it because it was reinforced by religion and state culture. Just because something is, doesn't mean it is bestbecause evolution made it so. One could say that the state is the best tool to organize large social groups, because they do exist today and therefore evolution made it so. You wouldn't buy that argument, would you? You are applying modern thinking to past behavior. There was no sense of paternity of father back then. Nobody knew who the father was. The competition for reproduction was fought between sperm cells instead of males fighting over females, like we do today. Because man didn't know if it was his kid or not, he helped raised the kid, in case it was his kid. Besides, everyone helped raising kids. Paternity became an issue once agriculture was invented and people started to own property. A man wanted to know if his child was really his, because of inheritance issues. Raising kids also ment having to provide your own property for a kid. That's why men are concerned with paternity. That didn't exist in hunter gatherer tribes and scince everyone helped to raise kids, nobody cared about paternity. Raising kids became much harder and time consuming for the individual with agriculture, because just a few men had the ressources to do so. There wasn't a tribe who helped raising your kid. So you better make sure your kid is really yours, if you put in all the work. It's therefore questionable if men really care about being the father. Because if that's the case why are gangbangs, orgies, and DP so popular genres in porn? If we are naturally monogamous, why watch those clips? Why do men watch those clips, if they want exclusivity from females? Wouldn't the demand for those clips almost non existent, if people were naturally monogamous? Your calculation is not based on reality because it ignores that females endure a nine month pregnancy. It's unlikely that a woman is able to have 50 kids. Even if all things line up and a woman is able to have a kid every year, she won't be able to have 50 kids, because hear eggs would dry up. But enough about this theoretical talk. If you look at tribes that engage in multimale-multifemale-mating behaviour you'll see that their population levels are linked to ressource levels in their environment. Jus because they are promiscious doesn't mean they do it like rabbits, consequences be damned.

I've been reading Sex at Dawn lately and am pretty convinced by it's findings and evidence. The book basically argues that humans engage in a multimale-multifemale-mating behavior. Meaning, most people have several different sex partners. It's neither monogamy nor polygamy. One of the argument is comparing ourselves with the body statue of apes. There's only one species of apes which engage in monogamy and that are the gibbons. Males and females are about the same size, sex only happens when the female is fertile. Because of that, the balls of male gibbons are inside their bodies, to keep the sperm warm. Gorillas on the other hand are polygamous. The biggest male takes all women for himself. This results in male gorillas being much larger then females. Our closest relatives are the bonobos followed by the chimpanzees. Both engage in multimale-multifemale-mating behavior, the males are only slightly bigger than females, and their balls are located outside of their bodies, because they are designed for frequent ejaculation. While the chimpanzees are a patriarchal and hierarchical species, in which males dominate and compete for women, bonobos are more matriarchial. The females are in charge and they use sex to strengthen their social bonds and remove competition among males. Bonobos are known for being peaceful, stress-free and sex-crazy. It appears that many hunter-gatherer tribes behaved similar to bonobos. Since females usually sleep with several men during ovulation, there was no way do determine who's the father. Kids were raised by the tribe, rather than a nuclear family. The competition between men had been moved from men fighting over who's getting the girl to their actual sperm cells competing for fertilization. Similar to bonobos, those tribes tended to be more peaceful and egalitarian. When everybody gets to bang, nobody really cares about out-competing the other guy. When it comes to raising children, I think there are several benefits over monogamy. Kids are raised by the collective tribe. This makes it harder to isolate them. We all know that abusers usually need to act in the shadows. I think the likelihood for somebody being able to abuse a kid is much smaller, if more than two people are interested in raising a kid. There are no nuclear families with a abusive tradition which can use the "I raise my kids the way I want" excuse anymore. This doesn't do much if the whole tribe is abusive, but I think if the tribe is interested in survival, it will make sure that abusive people are ostracized. Kids don't experience the pain and fear when they learn that one of their parents has an affair. I think kids are traumatized in western society not so much because of their parents sleeping with somebody else, but the fact that the bond between their parents is weakened and therefore the security of the child put in question. This doesn't happen in those tribes. People are encouraged to sleep around. The safety of the kid depends on the strength of the tribe, and the bond of their parents isn't weakened, since it's acceptable behavior within that society. There's always somebody from both genders to take care of the kid. Even if the marriage fails or somebody dies, there are still the other males and females of the tribe who will take care of him, and treat the kid like every other child.

barbar wrote a good article describing the Roosh fiasco: http://sheddingoftheego.com/?p=397

Why is it interesting?

Sounds to me he is rebranding the talking points of the manosphere in order to create a following. I'm not really a fan of Roosh. He seems so narcissistic. Check out his latest video in which he asserts that he is the father of the manosphere and that he wants to be an elder and a captian. Sorry, not going to happen. We don't need another ideology with a predefined set of values that others have to adhere to. We are living in a different time in which more an more people decide their own value system. I guess people like him who are looking for a group to control will have a hard time adjusting to it.

I know that there is no contract in a statist society. However, a social contract is defined as a implicit contract to legitimize the authority of the state. Therefore a statist can only talk about social contracts in a society organized by a state. Yeah, I think it's okay to shoot someone that slaps me in the face. That's because I don't know if the attacker does something that may result in my death.

I think I understand this now. I can use whatever actions to defend myself, because I can't know if the initiator of violence might try to kill me or not. Also a social contract is something to legitimize the authority of the state over and individual. Since there is no state in Ancapistan, there can be no social contract.

Well the NAP is forced on me, because it can be used to legitimize violence against me. For example when I reject your property rights and and initiate violence against you, you are in your right to defend yourself to the point of killing me. What if i reject this principle? I don't see how this changes the fact that the NAP and property rights are a form of implicit social contract that everyone has to accept.

Hi, this came up in a discussion with a statist. He said that there is an implicit contract between me and the state, and therefore they are right to tax me. I answered, that the contract is not valid because it is forced on me and there is no voluntary agreement between me and the state. He then said, that the NAP and Property Rights are also an implicit social contract that an anarcho capitalistic society would force on him. It left me speechless, any thoughts?

It says not available.

Doesn't the video show that nobody cares about man spreading? It is just an issue feminists come up with to feel self-important.

Yeah, we just landed on a comet! Now lets get back to our discussion about how evil men are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6wiumBqkls He's really vulnerable during this video and I think he has a unresolved child hood trauma.

There was nice quote in the comment section. Hollywood actors are like mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed shit.

She walks the fine line between sounding like a helpless victim and being a supreme master demanding us to submit to her.

Magnolia is a 1999 film by Paul Thomas Anderson. It follows several different people during a day in San Fernando Valley, which become more and more connected with each other. Most of the characters are vicitims of child abuse and the film is very effective in portraying their different coping strategies. It also plays into mysticism (sometimes strange things happen) and the forgivness of the child. There are very powerful and triggering scenes in this movie. I really like this movie, although I don't agree with its entire message.

Porn can be harmful. There is also sience behind it. Check out http://yourbrainonporn.com

In 2003, the Beaudry family left their comfortable middle-class home to backpack across the world. A year after their adventure, Samuel Beaudry took another journey—one that left his wife, Maryse Chartrand, with shocking questions. How could a life-loving person take his own life? When mourning exhausts itself, what comes next? Can a family survive suicide? This documentary, originally planned as a record of the global trek, is Maryse’s quest to understand her husband’s decision and grow past it. Exploring issues of masculinity, male depression, and family dynamics, the film depicts the tragically belated discovery of one man’s hidden anguish—and one woman’s hard-won emotional healing. http://digital.films.com/play/3HQLUU I really like this documentary. It is haunting to see the dad enjoying the trip,feeling happiness and being content with so little, while knowing that he took his life. The talk about the provider roles and the fear of men to share their vulnerabilties really resonated with me. On the other hand, I'm not sure how to feel about the parents taking the kids to a world trip and removing them from their social circles for a year. There was a moment when the eldest daughter expressed her frustration with the trip and the movie, and the dad continiues shooting.

Great show.Here is further information: http://www.domesticviolenceresearch.org/

I was watching a pro socialism one for comparison: The amount of shaming, fear mongering and appeal to emotion instead of the clarity and reason in the one you linked is telling. When the speaker from your video asked a question he was accused of being abusive. Ironically, the pro socialism speaker was abusive himself when he spent the first minutes personally attacking the conservatives.

Women like this one are walking contradictions. She wants to make sure if the man is a decent human being, yet she herself doesn't act like one. I wonder if women are aware that this behaviour makes them look aggressive and that it only attracts weak men without personal boundaries.

I'm not sure why their genetic legacy would die out. I mean the first homosexual person had straight parents. So my guess is that homosexuality is not required in the family. However, this is just speculation

I also recommend Requiem for a Dream from the same director. It's a great movie about addiction.

I agree with that. It's just that this topic always implies that gay people are somewhat different in their parenting. I wanted to point out that there is no scientific evidence to believe that.