sam on April 26, 2012, 10:49:47 am
He wants women only as vessels to carry his genetic code into the future; doesn't give a sh*t about the woman's genetic code and its value to the future.  For myself, if I love a guy, I'll gladly love & help raise his kids "from a previous marriage"

Stepmothers and stepfathers are notorious for the kind of "help" that they provide.

Because these days the mother gets custody, the primary problem is the men who sleep with the mother.  Divorced women with kids who are young enough to still be sexually active notoriously fail to provide a safe environment for their children, but stepmothers are in practice similarly deadly.


mellyrn on April 26, 2012, 12:24:15 pm
Quote
Stepmothers and stepfathers are notorious for the kind of "help" that they provide.

You really don't know how to relate to Universe except through 2D stereotypes, do you?  I know, I know, it's so reassuring, imagining that reality really is that simple.  But what a pathetic waste of cerebral real estate.  What's the point of having a complex brain when you merely use it to pretend the world is as flat as Pac-Man?

myrkul999 on April 26, 2012, 12:31:22 pm
For myself, if I love a guy, I'll gladly love & help raise his kids "from a previous marriage"
Divorced women with kids who are young enough to still be sexually active notoriously fail to provide a safe environment for their children, but stepmothers are in practice similarly deadly.

Ahhh, the old "find correlation, infer causation" fallacy.

I'm not sure what, exactly, your agenda is, but it's pretty clear you're banging the "traditional family" drum. The problem is not promiscuity, it is a cultural abandonment of personal responsibility.

Killydd on April 26, 2012, 12:47:29 pm
I've seen the results of divorce.  I've seen many cases where the relationship between step-parent and child is significantly better than between biological parent and child.  My own, anecdotal, evidence is that people ARE capable of loving other people. 
That's just ridiculous. Consentual relations between mature individuals isn't harmful.
Every additional person a woman has sex with reduces her ability to commit and increases her propensity to stray, to have sex with random guys who plausibly pretend to be famous or important. This, in turn, reduces male investment in children and family.  Children raised in an unstable family unit grow up feral. 

Collapse of civilization ensues, Oslo and London following the path of Detroit, as white family formation in the 2010s starts to resemble black family formation in the 1980s.

So women only want to have sex with important people?  They couldn't possibly fuck someone because they enjoy it or care about that other person?  Really? 

mellyrn on April 26, 2012, 12:59:33 pm
Quote
This, in turn, reduces male investment in children and family.

Ah, you've caught on to the fact that most males are expendable (a colony of 1 male and 1000 females will last longer than a colony of 1 female and 1000 males), and you're trying to build in an artificial need for yourself, so you don't get "thrown off the island".  Humans are neither geese nor wolves; we don't naturally mate for life, so without an external force like an ideology (in this case, monogamy as a virtue), an unpleasant person is in dire danger of not being able to keep a partner.

Quote
So women only want to have sex with important people?  They couldn't possibly frack someone because they enjoy it or care about that other person?  Really?

If personal liking drives a human's choice of partner, and somebody doesn't get chosen -- well, that can be pretty hard to take.  It's much easier to believe that it's status that drives women's choices and youthful beauty that drives men's, so that we can comfort ourselves when we're passed over.

Quote
The problem is not promiscuity, it is a cultural abandonment of personal responsibility.

I agree, and I think I could make a half-decent case for laying the blame for that at the feet of our educational system.  I suppose someone might argue that it was intentional, but that someone won't be me -- I mean, I can see how one could think that, but I more strongly suspect ye olde Law of Unintended Consequences.



Hmm, I maybe have a poll question:  Folx, would you rather belong with a partner or a community that needed you for some purpose, but maybe didn't particularly like or want you, or to one that had no particular need for you but wanted you to belong with them anyway?

myrkul999 on April 26, 2012, 01:46:21 pm
Hmm, I maybe have a poll question:  Folx, would you rather belong with a partner or a community that needed you for some purpose, but maybe didn't particularly like or want you, or to one that had no particular need for you but wanted you to belong with them anyway?

For me, the answers are different. In a community, I would rather be needed (ie, I provide a vital service), don't care if I'm liked (though obviously, it's preferable to being disliked). With an individual, I would rather be desired, rather than needed.

sam on April 26, 2012, 04:09:08 pm
I've seen the results of divorce.  I've seen many cases where the relationship between step-parent and child is significantly better than between biological parent and child. 

If true, rather hard to observe.

What is a good deal easier to observe is families where one child is a step child of one of the parents and another child the natural child of that parent.  What is easier to observe, suggests that step parents are at best not in fact parents, and at worst, they are enemies of the children.  And most commonly, it is the worst.

Step parents are natural enemies of step children because the step child is competition for the love, attention, material resources, and fertility of its natural parent.  It is very convenient for the step parent should the step child suffer an unfortunate accident, and surprise surprise, they are apt to suffer unfortunate accidents.

We have a politically correct myth that serial monogamy works just fine, and everyone pretends to believe it, even though it is blatantly false.

I suppose that if we were a polygamous society, we would have a politically correct myth that the chief wife and junior wives just naturally loved each other.  The one myth is as unbelievable as the other, for exactly the same reasons.

sam on April 26, 2012, 04:21:40 pm
Quote
This, in turn, reduces male investment in children and family.

Ah, you've caught on to the fact that most males are expendable (a colony of 1 male and 1000 females will last longer than a colony of 1 female and 1000 males), and you're trying to build in an artificial need for yourself, so you don't get "thrown off the island". 

Observe what happens when women raise children solo.

Humans are neither geese nor wolves; we don't naturally mate for life

Serial monogamy, however is an unusual human institution.  Normal cases are actual monogamy, polygyny, and casual sex without fathers playing a significant role in children's lives.  Serial monogamy is apt to wind up approximating the latter, or to be a pious pretence wrapped around the latter.  Societies that predominantly have the latter system are all primitive, or rapidly become so.  Seems that males are required to transmit civilization.

And, as evidence of this, we observe that in today's society the spawn of single mothers are not in fact civilized.

myrkul999 on April 26, 2012, 04:27:32 pm
I've seen the results of divorce.  I've seen many cases where the relationship between step-parent and child is significantly better than between biological parent and child. 

If true, rather hard to observe.

What is a good deal easier to observe is families where one child is a step child of one of the parents and another child the natural child of that parent.  What is easier to observe, suggests that step parents are at best not in fact parents, and at worst, they are enemies of the children.  And most commonly, it is the worst.

Step parents are natural enemies of step children because the step child is competition for the love, attention, material resources, and fertility of its natural parent.  It is very convenient for the step parent should the step child suffer an unfortunate accident, and surprise surprise, they are apt to suffer unfortunate accidents.

I think you may have the shoe on the wrong foot here. Specifically, in this passage: "It is very convenient for the step parent should the step child suffer an unfortunate accident, and surprise surprise, they are apt to suffer unfortunate accidents." (emphasis mine)

I would say the danger comes not from the step parent, but the other child. Adults are (usually) more rational, and less likely to go hurting kids. Again, you are seeing a correlation, and picking a causation that suits the conclusion you want. That, my friend, is bad science.

mellyrn on April 26, 2012, 05:24:59 pm
Quote
Every additional person a woman has sex with reduces her ability to commit and increases her propensity to stray

Every additional person (man or woman) a woman has sex with gives her a point of comparison.  Stray?  From a guy who's an idiot in bed?  Well, yeah!  But if she's forced to stay with you, or (bwahaha) if she's been kept ignorant, you don't have to worry about how you measure up, do you?   You don't have to put any effort in giving her a reason to stay.  Sweet deal, like a job where you get paid without actually having to produce.

Bwahaha.

Sheesh.  Give me a guy who knows a meaningful compliment when he hears it; "oh, that was so good" from the girl who's known only you doesn't carry nearly the weight of the same comment from the woman who's known a few.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2012, 05:57:14 pm by mellyrn »

mellyrn on April 26, 2012, 05:54:25 pm
Ever notice how proponents of racist/sexist/nationalist/[subgroupsuperiority]ist ideas are never members of any of the "inferior" groups?  How no one ever says, "Race [for example] does matter and I am living proof -- my race had to take the short bus, compared to the magnificence of [them]!"?

It's as if arguments that "X subgroup of humans are superior" were nothing more than thinly-disguised efforts at self-aggrandizement.  I guess if you've got nothing personal to speak for your value, you could try to find at least some in your clan identity.

myrkul999 on April 26, 2012, 06:03:28 pm
Sheesh.  Give me a guy who knows a meaningful compliment when he hears it; "oh, that was so good" from the girl who's known only you doesn't carry nearly the weight of the same comment from the woman who's known a few.

This.

Honestly, I'd rather a gal who could show me a thing or two over a virgin who has no idea if I even know what I'm doing. Experienced girls are more fun.

sam on April 26, 2012, 06:38:31 pm
Quote
Every additional person a woman has sex with reduces her ability to commit and increases her propensity to stray

Every additional person (man or woman) a woman has sex with gives her a point of comparison. 

And yet somehow, strangely, increases the notorious propensity of women to make stupid and self destructive sexual choices.  Looks more like psychological and emotional damage than experience and wisdom.

One might suppose, on your theory, that sluts should wind up with successful marriages, but what we more commonly observe instead is that they delay having children, since they always expect that the gay biker gang leader drug dealer is going to settle down with them once he gets out of jail, or that their boss is going to divorce the mother of his four children, or that one of the musicians in the band ...  until at age forty three or so they give up hoping for a normal family and wind up spending a million dollars on IVF in an unsuccessful effort to spawn fatherless children.

The typical slut progression is to start with the boy next door, and by age thirty six wind up banging the extremely macho gay biker who is out on parole, finding progressively worse prospects progressively more and more sexually desirable.  By and large, the sluttier the woman, the more hurtful and self destructive her preferences in males.  The girl who finds single high socioeconomic status nice guy males with good prospects and no jail time sexually attractive is generally the girl with the low notch count.

For men, sexual experience is wisdom and experience gained.  For women, sexual experience frequently manifests as something that looks more like brain damage.

myrkul999 on April 26, 2012, 06:58:08 pm
Quote
Every additional person a woman has sex with reduces her ability to commit and increases her propensity to stray

Every additional person (man or woman) a woman has sex with gives her a point of comparison. 

And yet somehow, strangely, increases the notorious propensity of women to make stupid and self destructive sexual choices.  Looks more like psychological and emotional damage than experience and wisdom.

One might suppose, on your theory, that sluts

I stopped reading right here. Pejoratives do not belong in logical discourse. You have revealed fully what previous posts have only hinted at: your astonishingly misogynistic viewpoint.

sam on April 26, 2012, 07:32:40 pm
I stopped reading right here. Pejoratives do not belong in logical discourse.
And then, unsurprisingly, you proceed with a string of perjoratives.

Similarly, the earlier use of cries of racist and sexist in this thread did not trouble you in the least, nor did unpleasant speculations and accusations about my personal sex life.

It would seem that only some perjoratives do not belong in rational discourse.