I wasted my time studying thousands of academic journals to find what they don’t teach
The no means yes sex dimorphism problem.
All I needed to figure out was the pleasurable exclusive access problem.
What’s (y)our motivation here, Meno_? This is how it’s gonna be the rest of our lives? What are we so afraid of?
nuke explodes in fractal distances
Procreation is about struggle - agon.
We, as living beings with an objective, are in a constant state of war, against existence, against others, against ourselves.
Peace is an imagined state of stagnation.
We rightly associate peace with death - a return to unconsciousness, unaware of existential, dynamic interactivities.
Peace is like pleasure…a negative, ephemeral state.
Shalom/peace… the radical sort practiced by MLK, Jr…. is living & active… from a fullness.
The lack of ability to feel pain is anhidrosis. The lack of the ability to feel pleasure is anhedonia. Pain is not just the lack of pleasure. Pleasure is not just the lack of pain. They are not on the same scale, gradient, what have you (even if they are on the same double helix or whatever it is).
You know what would be interesting? Design an equalizer graphic that, if possible, shows the parallel between the types of equalizing for a stereo(?) and a human being. I need to know more about waves and how they vortex (or whatever it is they do) to make this analogy really pop.
Is that why Gandhi was so successful?
peace
-
complete absence of antagonism
-
lower level of antagonism
-
absence of the kind of antagonism that will prevent one from attaining their highest goal ( e.g. eternal life )
It’s one of those.
Note that ( 3 ) permits all kinds of antagonism that can be imagined so as long one can recover from them and attain their highest goal.
I can only guess what Dennis Kane is talking about. This thread is a very strange one indeed.
As for the OP, I would think that such a leader would at the same time neutralize the triggered impulse and sublimate it into loyalty, never abuse it into a David Koresh type situation. The loyalty would look like an organic self=other distribution of work/play according to skillset. You would likely not even know they are the organizing center of gravity because it is so evenly distributed. As if each member is a center of gravity after the same pattern…and so…similarly attractive…even if not by conventional standards.
Just guessing.
If the point of monoga-tech is to decrease competition between males, why didn’t the strong men eliminate the weak men & hoard the supply of females? Monopolies bring societal collapse? Oh crap!
Why do other animals have males who choose one (usually) lifelong mate, & who help rear young (emperor penguins, seahorses, etc.)? Are they using tech?
By the gods, you are naive… =D>
Because including males, tuts, helps in competitions with other groups.
One male cannot defeat a hoard of males…even if most are inferior.
Monogamy integrates males, making them investors in a group’s well-being, and passionate defenders of its hierarchies.
Monogamy is a technology imposed upon humans - using ethics, and the fear of god - to integrate as many males as possible into a group. This necessitates some form of social engineering, to help individuals supress their natural impulses.
Institutionalization = domestication. Once achieved an additional option is made available - selecting what kind of man will be bred, by manipulating a female’s natural filtering role.
This creates additional collateral negative effects - mind/body dissonance - where a female is trained to be attracted to a socially idealized type of male, while being genetically compelled to find another type more attractive.
Ha!!!
These are not primates, are they dear.
Parrots are monogamous, as are many species…not primates.
Some species have harems…including primates.
Some species, like wolves, tolerate lower status males, since they have a breeding pair; a pack working for the upbringing of the pups they produce.
Lions drive off competing males, killing the offspring of a defeated male so as to help females become receptive to his, ahem, penile penetrations.
Humans aren’t birds, nor fish, dear.
But you want us to become bird-brains.
An experiment was conducted once…I read about it.
They injected a monogamous species - I think it was a kind of parrot - with testosterone.
The outcome?
The testosterone injected parrot left its mate - flew the coop.
They associated testosterone levels with polygamy…see human racial differences and how they translate socially.
Testosterone levels are also part of a female’s sex drive.
Additionally, in relation to penguins…
The impulse to pair-bond is so strong - especially in monogamous species - that when there’s a shortage of the opposite sex they will pair-bond with a member of their own sex, with no procreative outcome - genetic dead-end, i.e., unfitness.
This, in response to the other moron who uses homosexual behaviour to justify homosexuality as being no different to heterosexuality. It’s all about the pleasure reward, for her and her ilk, including Abrahamics who await a greater pleasure rewards after-death.
Just another lifestyle choice, by a woman who doesn’t even believe we have free-choice - implying that homosexuality, and transexuality, is part of some determined cosmic plan, inevitable and not circumstantial.
Everything about existence can be explained from within the existing - not from without.
The without is easy…a copout; it can be used to explain anything.
The within is what imposes limits, making it difficult.
Everything about organic behaviours, about life - including its emergence and development - can be explained from within natural processes.
The absence of a complete, or adequate explanation does not make every absurdity equal to any rational hypothesis.
Theories ought to be judged on merit - not conventional beliefs, emotional appeals, popularity, or deference to experts - plenty of those around supporting all kinds of absurdities.
What then? 
Existence itself. Natural order and chaos, being the unseen factor, that makes order meaningful and valuable.
If all is ordered then it is like saying ‘all ought to be loved; all deserves love’ or ‘all is alive, or deserves to live.’ It decreases the value of the act; it diminishes its presence.
“Deserves ain’t got nothin’ to do with it.” as William Munny would say.
Life is valuable because it is rare. The more ubiquitous it becomes the more it loses its value.
Love is precious because it is discriminating, it is selective. The more universal it is defined to be, the less value it has.
Imagine someone telling you he loves you after telling you he loves everything and everyone. It makes his statement meaningless.
Now imagine someone telling you he loves you who you know has never spoken these words, or loves few, if any. What meaning his words now acquire; how precious they become to you.
Is a whore, giving you her body for a reward, as valuable as a woman giving herself to you and only you?
The whore does it expecting a reward, like Christians love you expecting eternal rewards. They don’t really love and value you, they don’t even know you, or care to know you; they love and value the reward, and you are a means towards it.
Male birds use ornateness just like male humans.
My biggest ornateness is my intelligence and humor.
The two are highly correlated.
As a philosopher though, I ponder the ethics of my humor and intelligence. I ponder whether ornateness is moral to attract a mate.
Birds and other species use self-handicapping “ornates” to display their virility in relation to reality.
You are not intelligent.
You are immersed in delusion and fantasy - completely disconnected from reality.
Human symmetry/proportionality finds a correlate in cognitive, intellectual symmetry/proportionality, displayed as charm creativity, indifference/confidence, …you are neither of these.
You are desire incarnate.
Your entire world-view is directed towards your exclusion from sexual gratification, via female agency.
Your “cosmic problems” are personal problems, expressing your ineptness and impotence, as some kind of universal cosmic metaphysics, all of which, coincidentally, have to do with sex and access to sex.
There are three problems which are the same problem spoken in 3 different ways.
You feel like you are one of the losers.
Not my judgement, your own.
Trust me, winners don’t give a shit about the feelings of those they’ve defeated…and women love winners.
You, are one of the ‘hurt ones.’
So hurt that it is “beyond comprehension.”
You are telling others that they cannot experience your pain.
Every act, in fact, hurts others, meaning every act hurts you, when it does not ask for your consent.
That tells me you’ve been a victim of another’s choices and control over you…because of your mental situation.
You, feel it is unfair that you are hurting while others are feeling pleasure.
You suffer from the idea that others are laughing or happy about your condition.
Lorikeet. I’m just going to say one simple thing to you.
Everyone who gets laid is a sociopath.
Men and women alike.
Do you want to see the magnitude of my sociopathic side?
This isn’t about Jews, it’s about me.
Leave Jews out of this.
Do you really want to have a competition between me and the woman of your dreams?
The moment I detect she’s the woman of your dreams…. I let you have her even if I want her too.
I wish I actually counted as a judge.
_
I repeat…
THAR SHE BLOWS
THAR SHE BLOWS
FAT GIRL
I WANNA PROVE MY FEELINGS ARE FOR REAL
SO ILL BUY YOU A MILLION HAPPY MEALS
WHOA WHOA
THAR SHE BLOWS
FAT GIRL
PUT MY HOTDOG INTO YOUR BUN
FAT GIRL
YOURE REALLY REALLY TONS OF FUN
Bet he’s havin a WHALE of a good time as a fat f*** gettin drunk all by his lonesome 
Sex is simple, but also so complex that if people actually spent all their energy trying to get it consensually without hurting anyone’s feelings…
We would never have the time to invent war.
…or sex. Which… is a kind of war. The way you go about things.
Touché.