You seem to be in-between the idea that morality isn’t what you once thought is was and the idea that “morality” isn’t anything. You brought up a subject that completely negates the concept of morality, yet, you then ask that people continue to make “moral” or “ethical” theories; only “better” ones. I have every reason to believe that no coherent “ethical” theory will every be created. I believe if one absolutely must concern themselves with society rather than just self and friends/family, then advocating complete honesty based on what is natural is sufficient.
commentary: You start with 2 very general categories; Man Woman. You divide Man into two sub-categories; bullies and non-bullies. You then make generalized statements (I’m paraphrasing rather than directly quoting now.) You say bullies have more sexual choice than non-bullies–but you offer no evidence to show that’s so. I don’t believe your statement is necessarily true.
You make generalized statements about women, as well. You say we are all evil whores, among other things. I don’t believe that’s true, either.
Do most men who commit suicide successfully do so between the ages of 18-24. Perhaps. Again, you offer no ‘footnotes’ so all I have to go on is your say-so. But I’ll assume that’s true. Most men between 18-24 are also the ones chosen, or who themselves choose, to go to war–without sexual partners–unless your military is like the Roman military which encouraged what is now called homosexuality. The fiercest warriors were those who fought back to back (literally) with their partners. The practice solved two things: the problem of unsatisfied sexuality and the problem of less than the fiercest warriors.
We don’t live in that sort of society, so I can understand why sexual deprivation could be a part of PTSD and why it could lead to male suicide in that age group. I’d like to see the figures for male suicide among former military and male suicides (within the same age group) of non-combatants.
On to women–because I am one. Some women are fascinated with power and wealth; some men are, as well–but not all. You mentioned Ted Bundy, whose marriage proposal was accepted by a woman during his trial as a serial killer. There are always going to be a few of those women. They’re fascinated by the Bundys and Mansons of the world. Fortunately, most of us aren’t–there wouldn’t be enough Bundys or Mansons to go around, if we were.
Women are as sexual as men; we just show it differently. Most of that is cultural. It’s also how cosmetics’ companies make their money. Women are bound by time. Female sexual organs are the first to stop functioning; a man will continue to produce sperm for years. Since women are bound by their reproductive cycles, they’re bound to be choosy. Those of us who can, either intellectually or psychologically, will make the choice of a mate based on both of their abilities to procreate and care for children. Both men and women, however, are now living longer than before, so there are other conditionals placed on choosing a mate–who will be able to continue to care for whom when the children are grown and living their own lives? Because a woman’s reproductive life is so short, this is often a major consideration among thinking women.
So, for most women–or maybe only a vast minority of American women–the idea of sexuality becomes secondary after a while. Is she/he good in bed is a part of the initial attraction for everyone. After a while, while sex is still a major concern, other things become at least equally, if not more, important. And humans aren’t the only animals who mate for life, you know.
I can continue, if you want, but not now. It’s 3AM and I must go to bed.
Enjoy! 
Ok, takes a deep breath, lots to respond to here. There are two suicide spikes, one at 15-24 and one at 65-70+. One thing that interesting about war is that it is like 15-24 in steroids in terms of the bullies getting the most sex. It certainly isn’t the sociopaths who are suiciding from war. The rape rate is higher in the military than the general population… a difference of 1 and 3, vs, 1 and 6 (some say 1 and 5). One of the unfortunate aspects of life that men get to observe is that men who rape women tend to be the ones who win out for the most sexual selections and this is going to be most acute in the military structure and psychology, like I said… it’s jr high and high school on steroids. So the conditions that cause the increased suicide for those grades will be increased from the general population because the military environment expresses those triggers more acutely. Actually it is only quite recently that military suicides surpassed the general population and seems to correspond with the phenomenon of female combatants and how those sexual politics play out.
My computer is going to force a restart from an update very soon, so I’ll reply to the rest of this after that happens (it won’t let me stop the restart)!!
Ok! I suppose my computer has now given me permission to type this message =)
I’ll try to re-explain what I typed above because it’s important this gets articulated well.
This is going to sound really bad at first glance, but you have to understand that hyper-sensitive people are most reactive to bullying getting sexually rewarded over non-bullying than any other human crime, so read this in that context. Sensitive people HATE rape, and the reason is because it increases the odds that some asshole will randomly hurt them down the line as they go about their lives, the reason being because they hate when bullying gets rewarded sexually, which is what causes that increased aggression. They hate two things for the same reason, when women choose bullies over non-bullies and when bullies get rewarded sexually for violating consent. What occurs is that men who rape have the personality constructs to tend to win out for CONSENSUAL selections as well, they have what people like to describe as the ‘confidence’, this almost ‘cocky’ affect, they tends to draw women more than not. These are the guys that eventually turn those “no’s” into “yesses”, I have often times spotted a guy like this approach women and immediately the women look uncomfortable, but seem unsure of what to do, so he keeps talking his game and eventually they start to become comfortable, he already violated the rule that women don’t consent to approaches and got rewarded for it. In being able, often to listen to these discussions and watching the body language, I am often appalled that women eventually become comfortable and appreciate of the very company they are receiving. It is exceedingly common for men to observe a woman either tell them, or overhear them talking to friends that soandso is such an asshole, only to find out that they had sex a few days later, while the guy who never gets these types of complaints doesn’t. This is the typical scenario that the kinder men witness repeatedly.
So they get doubly traumatized, first they’re not raping women, and they’re not getting as sexually rewarded with consensual sexual selections as men who do rape women… the guys who are doing TWO things very wrong are the ones who get most rewarded and the guys who are doing TWO things right are getting the least rewarded. Hence the suicide.
The military has a lot of non-bullies and a lot of assholes too, however, the psychosexual environment of the military re-creates the conditions of junior high - high school - early college to a greater extreme than is even witnessed in those grades, where the non-bullies get the least sexual choice. It’s not the war that is causing the increase in military suicides, it is the psychosexual environment that is causing it. It is a very new phenomenon that there are more military suicides than the general population, and part of the reason is because more women are in the military than before, which is causing this repeated loss for doing the right thing become so much more acute than the spike at 15-24.
Actually, I think like in Roman times, prostitutes follow the US military, or really any military. Your comment about the Bundy case missed that men do not do this for violent female offenders, which is what I was using to illustrate that the reason men are more brutish than women to this regard is because women have been giving more bullying type behavior more sexual choice in men than men have in women, the fact that women do go for the extremes and men don’t speaks very much of a runaway sexual selection problem that confirms my thesis.
There is a reason that rapists almost universally believe that the women WANTS to be raped and it is the observation that the men who DO NOT try to turn a “no” into a “yes” don’t get sexually selected as much as the men who don’t take no for an answer. There has to be another solution to this so that kind men can show attraction and/or have a right to ask for sex without creating the subliminal environment that all women want to be raped, which is exactly what it does. The way the subliminal environment works, any showing of attraction to a female on the part of the male is re-enforcing rape culture because of how women relative to men show discomfort at approaches and forms of attraction. The only thing I can think of is to create a merit system.
None of this is really in response to your first two points about refusing to believe that bullies get more sexual choice than non-bullies or that women don’t create most of the social stratification in the world. I can tell you that if someone paid their workers better, there’s no way they could have billions of dollars or even 100’s of millions of dollars, so you’re already in asshole territory when you become mega rich… if women gave these men the least sexual choice, men wouldn’t horde their wealth like that, so yes, female sexual choice is effecting social stratification.
I’ll spend some time trying to come at your points that you don’t believe this, even though you didn’t address my points, I’ll try to present a totally new argument to defend my position, which is a tall order… maybe I’ll just explain my position better. I’ll need some time to do the work you have refused to do in your reply.
I can agree that sexual neglect / rejection has a huge impact. However, there are many drives that demand being met for one’s well being. People suffer when these aren’t being met.
Sexual neglect isn’t the only cause for suicide. Our current society is awful in terms of meeting the needs of the populace.
You got my hopes up for nothing.
God, no… Your arguments are about as correct as any arguments can be. I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say you’ve repeated your major points close to ten times. All anyone who is ever going to respect any of your arguments need say is, “The major implication in your essay are obviously correct, but I would contend with a few points: ahem…” Liz and Joe, whom I respect well enough, made it clear that they think your major implication should be downgraded to a large extent. How could you possibly win them over to the side of reason? They don’t want to see reason in this regard, just like I supposedly don’t want to see reason in other regards.
Let’s get past this narrow track we’re on and speak directly to morality. Most people have always done what it takes to survive, which usually involves doing something that will at least indirectly lead to someone else not surviving. The instances you speak of may be the most prevalent towards causing suicide, but suicide isn’t the number one cause of death. Look towards the number one cause; maybe disease or starvation, then look at who’s doing what (or more importantly who’s not doing what) to stop it. And then think to yourself why they aren’t doing anything. Think hard, don’t stop at, “they’re heinous people”; besides, its not as if anyone posting here isn’t a part of the problem.
Then if you must still make a moral theory or a theory as to how the “world” can be a “better place”; make one that correctly states what human nature is and how we can magically bypass it, rather than one that simply ignores human nature by claiming humans all are blank slates. Then when you’re finally done; be happy knowing you’ve spent some time well wasted!
I’m not sure where to take this. Humans are not blank slates, and ways to work around human problems don’t have to be magical either. I offered a very simple merit system to get around the tendency of female sexuality. You certainly bring up points about other neglects that cause suffering, however, I would like to point out that starvation, rape, murder of all your loves ones and torture so severe that concentration camps, gulags and prisons don’t have as much of an effect on suicidality as the sexual neglect of sexually meritous behavior. So from a sheer suffering standpoint, although they are all interrelated, I’m much more interested in the best 10-20% of males getting the most female sexual choice instead of the reverse which has been historically precedent.
I must have missed that part, would you please explain it more clearly? And please, don’t explain the whole theory again.
Well it may not be as simple as it sounds at the get-go… I mean, this would be arguably the most valuable credit a human can earn and the motivation to counterfeit it will be higher than any other form of credit. It’s basically that we have various forms of accomplishment which we agree deserve effectually a sexual credit, so that if someone makes a contribution to the welfare of others they can choose a partner. The hard part is deciding which accomplishments deserve credit, how much, and how to avoid any abuses of the system, namely, by people in the accredation system, who might not have credit as high as people outside the system. It could be like the Nobel prize where only past nominies can extend credit to others and then it’s reviewed by a board. Perhaps also, it would make sense to allow for legal action in the case that someone is clearly sexually rewarding bullies and sexually neglecting non-bullies, that may or may not be involved in the sexual credit aspect.
I’m not really interested right now in expounding the entire architecture for such a system, more than just to throw it out as what I think is the only viable remedy for this phenomenon. While there would be lots of nuances to such a system, I think when it comes to sex, people suddenly get very high IQ’s, and it wouldn’t be that difficult to brainstorm a pretty foolproof system with integrity.
I realized that someone could interpret that I’m advocating eugenics, and perhaps there is a eugenic aspect to this debate if reproduction is considered, which I haven’t gone into, I only consider these sexual selections in a non-reproductive sense. More like, well, you can have your asshole husband, but have sex with these guys in order to earn that BS. I’m more of a behaviorist than a eugenistist, I don’t advocate the killing of what someone might consider our lesser in terms of intellect or disability. I’m from a strict behaviorist idea that what gets rewarded the most will be most replicated. I think if people had to actually stand before their peers and elders ARGUE their sexual merit, that we would see even saints of psychopaths. The problem of the dysfunction that arises from this is that goodness gets neglected and the harshness and bullying gets re-enforced and it makes no logical sense, which is why there is so much psychosis and existential depression on the male side, women don’t experience this as much because even the worst psychopathic male wants a sweet woman. Men simply choose better than women do, and this phenomenon is more directly tied to existential depression than XYZ hell that you can conjure from what people do in this species. The idea is to try to make it so that the women choose as well as the men do, so that the men become as nurturing as the women are generally seen to be (because of how men sexually select women).
Perhaps this will help explain the phenomenon more if it didn’t make sense before. I have run the simulation so many times in my head I have not even kept count. If you made a world where it was impossible for a human to commit a physical act of violence against another human, this would drop the female suicide rate to either zero or very close to zero and the male suicide rate would remain at a constant or perhaps even higher. If you made it so that suicide was extremely easy in this condition, the male suicide rate would probably increase by 2000%, while the female rate would be closer to zero. What’s occurring here is that women are such bigger psychopaths than males are, that their heaven, so to speak, where their suicide levels are 0 or close to zero, operates at a level where males are still effectively in hell because males aren’t as psychopathic as a gender.
I’m starting to understand exactly what it is that you’re saying.
That makes one of us.
I think one could get a sort of grasp on it, if interpreted as an irony. (Perhaps)
commentary: Why not answer my reply? I don’t disagree completely with you; I disagree with your generalizations. Before I can answer to the validity of your ideas, you really need to give me some factual data.
Does sexual deprivation produce existential depression only in men or can the same thing occur in women, as well? I think it can; but, again, the manifestations are different.
You said:
Why do you say that? The ASPD says:
To go further (and the following is my own opinion, based on what I’ve studied, informally, about human brain functions,) someone who is completely asocial/amoral has no empathy–no remorse–no feeling–whatsoever! You say sexual deprivation leads to existential depression which leads to suicide–in men. Therefore, you say, women should look at more than “brutal” machoism when choosing a mate. I say women do look at more. Women look for mates; they don’t always look only for sexual partners. A good sex partner can be a good mate–and vice versa. But both genders should look for a balance, of sorts, and understand that there’s a difference between sexuality and sensuality. I would imagine that more women are more attracted sensually than sexually to men, than men are to women. Men are more sexual; women are more sensual–that’s a generalization, I know.
If you have a ‘merit system’ where ‘worthy’ men can choose sexual partners as a reward for contributions to the world, you are not only thinking sexually, you’re also objectifying women. That’s rather a one-sided merit system, don’t you think? 
It can produce existential depression in women, but men tend to rescue depression with sexual intimacy, psychologically women have more to look forward to sexually than men do because they’re not nearly as sexually stratified as men are, they don’t get discriminated sexually if they lose a job etc… Also, women who are kinder have the most sexual choice, which creates a more psychologically optimistic atmosphere which causes less psychosis in their gender.
Your quote about psychopathy is exactly how women are, they pervasively abuse men sexually, such that if the world suddenly has a machine that teleported people to a prison cell if they tried to strike at another human being, the female suicide rate would be practically, if not completely zero, while the male rate would continue to be extremely high, because of how much more psychopathic women are relative to men. Women as a gender are more abusive than men, such that what is heaven for them, still continues to be a very abusive living hell for men, because men aren’t as psychopathic of a gender, they treat women better sexually than women treat them by an exponential factor. I thought I explained this well, but apparently not. Women have zero remorse about having sex with bullies more than non-bullies, even though it causes war, homicide, rape, social stratification and existential suicide.
Men look for mates as well. People seem to think that only women are interested in procreation and nurturing and are the gender most interested in hanging around a child. This is not true! Men have just as much procreative interest from an evolutionary standpoint of being a father as women have of being a mother when it comes to financially and emotionally supporting offspring. In all these cases there will be women who are emotionally and financially neglectful of their offspring more than men, I actually don’t see a difference when it comes to the genders for this particular issue, I don’t think women do one more than men… when it comes to the mate aspect.
The female argument that women look more for sensualism is nonsense, bullies get most the sex!!! How is that possibly sensual!!! I can’t believe my ears when I hear women talking about how they don’t objectify and that men are pigs… they SUBJECTIVELY give bullies the most sex in the male gender!!! Males SUBJECTIVELY give female non-bullies the most sexual choice in the gender. If anything men are more sensual than women are.
Personally, if there was such a thing as judgment day, if I was recommending a strategy to a woman, I would tell them to pray to be judged as an object instead of a subject, when you’re dealing with a gender whose “subject” is causing the aforementioned atrocities.
I actually get a little riled when the argument about female subjectivity being superior to male objectivity when people speak rhetorically about sex. There is a common wisdom in sociology that men are less choosy than women are, and this is FALSE!!! Men don’t marry psychopathic women in prison!!! This is a common occurrence for psychopathic men to get marriages out of their psychopathic sprees from women. Men aren’t more or less choosy, they select for different traits. Any gruff woman will have basically zero sexual choice with men no matter what she looks like. The gruff thing works VERY well for men. If women really want to go down THIS road, they better be prepared!!! This “romance” and “sensualism” is giving male bullies the most sexual choice, male sexuality is giving female non-bullies the most sexual choice. I can never believe my ears to this day when I hear women trying to actually pass this stuff off. The male bullies get the most sexual choice and the most female sexual variety! Men who try to turn “no’s” into “yesses” get the most sex from women.
Women talk about their “love” for settling down with a partner for monogamy, while men are cheating bastards! Well guess what!!! Those cheating bastards are giving women more sexual choice with highly desirable mates, which is DECREASING the suicide rate of women all over the world!!!
I wanted to comment further on this line. The reason I don’t think we should consider reproduction (mating) with respect to a merit system (why it should just be sex), is because I don’t think women or men should be forced to have children from a sexual merit system. However, a sexual merit system that was just about sex, and men tend to choose sweet people, is that it assured that men who are the least bullying and most socially contributing get the most sexual choice in the species. This is not something women need to worry about because men are already doing it for them!!!
Additionally, I wanted to cover one more aspect of the social stratification part. When you run a business of any type that earns you a living, your customers are effectively your employees, they pay your salary by contributing to your business, to some extent, they are also your employers. If you want to engage in profit sharing for your employees (customers) that are making you rich, you make the product cost less, if you want to be more fair with the people who engage in running a business for the customers, you pay them higher as well. These is no reason why someone should make many hundreds of millions of dollars while other people have barely anything. There is no such thing a person that is worth THAT much more money than another person.
The problem is, that over history, men who don’t engage in profit sharing with their customers by reducing prices (being assholes) get more sexual choice.