Ecmandu, I am really interested in your idea of sexual stratification, mostly because I have seen how sex in this society (USA) is tabooed. Women are considered whores when they partake in the harmless act of having sex with many, when in reality I just see it as harmless appreciation and adoration of what the human body can perceive. But it seems that these women are the ‘‘worst’’ for society and they are the most mocked on mostly by women themselves, while having this hypocritical fallacy where they also quite enjoy a lot of sex in the most natural way. Its quite atrocious. I believe that if sex becomes a more accepted norm in society, and it is treated as a real and mature situation, then some problems that are talked on your idea would be solved, not all of them, since there is also the psychology of women about her relation to man that needs to be dealt with.
Also, I dont see how suicide in men is directly associated with sexual stratification.
It’s based on conspicuous consumption aggression, such as playing sports or watching sports, going to war, writing music with lyrics that contradict themselves etc… actually, the isolated variable is something called contradiction frequency, this is like peacock plumage to a human, it’s the number of times they can self contradict, contradict or contradict their motives in a sentence or action. Sexual stratification doesn’t really occur on the female side, because even if women are sexually stratifying males at a rate of 1:100, or 1:1000, or even 1:10,000, that’s ALOT of men for women to still have sex with and get all the sexual variety they want. This improves life outlook and quality of life. We know for a fact that crimes of neglect are worse than crimes of positive torture in terms of generating suffering, so we know that sexual stratification is worse than being a POW for 20 years. The magnitude of the crime is mind boggling, the suicide ares are actually homcides, which means women are committing genocide in conditions worse than concentration camps, and we also know that they are choosing the best males for this brutal treatment, not the worst, not the handicapped, nothing that was quasi logic to the Nazi’s. That’s why you always see girlfriends giggling, but hardly ever see men do it.
The difference in depth between men and women is a gigantic chasm… you can sit down with a Ted Bundy, or a Charles Manson or a Jeffrey Dahmer, and have the MAN talk with them, and it’ll reach them, even though they’re sick, they’re acknowledge their sickness and seek to heal, but with women it’s a totally different story… they MAY admit it’s true, but they have ZERO desire to change. They don’t give a shit about the war rape and suicide. Seriously. They just want to fuck their assholes, you can even prove their assholes, and they still want to fuck them. That’s how women are wired… they are asshole fucking robots.
Actually, I think you did sort of answer my question. Sexual stratification is probably based on much the same criteria as social stratification. If that’s the case, sexual stratification would occur on the female side as well, but perhaps not as much. Women in general seem more discriminate than men, but I don’t know if that’s actually the case.
I wouldn’t compare discriminate sex with a crime of neglect though.
It certainly is neglect when there are haves and have nots, and to add insult to injury, the haves are the assholes. Why do you think guys modify their tailpipes on motorcycles and blast their stereos? Conspicuous consumption aggression.
The distribution is crazy… there are dudes who before they die, have sex with 50,000 women, men have numbers like 40,000, 30,000, 15,000, 12,000, 8,000, 9,000… not even female prostitutes get those kinds of numbers. Even men in the triple digits club are in the 1 percentile… and they’re all assholes. Hitting on a woman causes suicide. Obviously you haven’t read my prior threads on this topic.
It’s not that I haven’t read your prior posts, it’s just that I think your views on human, especially female, psychology are ridiculous. In fact, your posts reveal more about your own psychological issues than those of other people.
You think facts are my psychological issues. There’s something called the female sexual blackmail system, people use it to fit in socially even on message boards… I’d take a look at that if i were you.
Let me give you a piece of advice, the greatest mistake people make in my opinion is assuming other people think like them.
Now, it’s obviously the case that our best reference for how others may think is our own thought processes. But, it is a huge mistake to think everyone thinks like you or that everyone thinks alike. People do think in very different ways - some completely foreign to you. There are all sorts of factors that come to bear on how someone thinks. For example, there is education, IQ, emotional intelligence and makeup, gender, religion, culture, upbringing, and varying degrees of primitiveness etc. Indeed, I find a huge difference in how a religious person thinks versus a secular non-religious person thinks albeit there are always varying degrees of overlap. Depending on the person, different things may or may not be important to them.
They are facts. Humans have slightly less stratification than most animals actually, not by much, and it’s clustering on the female to the male side (one exception in mammals (and primates) being the Bonobo), most species have a 90/10 distribution, some are even higher. These are basic facts of species. It is also a basic fact that you can discern what humans would call depression in sexually stratified populations, increased stress, depression, apathy and agitation. Like other non-social species (of which humans fit into), the large majority of sexually stratified populations don’t gang up on the “assholes of the species” from a game theory point of view to help make their species more social by decreasing sexual stratification.
Well… if by this, you mean some people still think the earth is flat because the Bible said it had 4 corners, than i agree, not everyone agrees with facts. This is called conspicuous consumption aggression, which is why it is so prevalent in human societies… if you can deny a fact and not get killed for it, it looks to the female like you are defying death and are supremely fit as a mate. This is called the death defiant aspect of conspicuous consumption aggression… it’s an asshole thing to do, but assholes get the most sex. People have billions of ways to contradict themselves and have adapted to it quite well. The reason the Bible one works well, is because it has to do with the female tendency to want to be rescued for her princess story, so if you’re “in with the creator, the most powerful being ever” then women believe that by having sex with you, their princess story will come true. That’s the only reason religion spread.
No, I do not mean that some people know the facts and other people don’t know the facts - although that is also true albeit one can usually debate the degree of certainty regarding any alleged fact.
I mean that people THINK differently. You seem to be a highly intelligent person, but you also seem to THINK very much like a secularists. For example, you tend to focus on rather primitive notions when assessing people, which is a hallmark of a secularists who has taken religion out of the picture and then focused on the soft human sciences, like psychology and sociology. Your overgeneralizations about women and “princess stories” and the A-holes they love are very much a sign that you THINK like a secularist. Now, what you say may be true of certain stupid and primitive women who also happen to be secularists like yourself, but your pronouncements about women in general is a gross overreach showing your lack of knowledge regarding the variations in how people THINK.
It’s not a matter of stupid and primitive women being some of the case. We know this species is sexually stratified just like 99.999% of other species, and we know these species are more aggressive than non-stratified species. In our species it also causes suicide. I don’t think God would make an entire gender of psychopathic robots. It’s basic sociology that marriage is about social dominance and hierarchy, as is the ownership of sexual property. Nice men aren’t into that stuff and they don’t get laid, that’s because we also know like 99.999% of species that female choose conspicuous consumption aggression for mating, short and long term.
We also know from this that the only possible sentence that prevents war and suicide is, “Sexual stratification causes war and suicide.” We know women can easily pick men up with this line, and we know that women become more aggressive when they hear it. So we know women are sexual psychopaths.
I don’t think God would make a whole gender of psychopaths. God could have easily said this sentence in our past 10,000 years, but didn’t. I don’t think God would do that either. That’s my best disproof of God.
I also take offense at social sciences being called the soft human sciences. There is more that we’ve proven in social sciences than hard sciences. Even in the hard sciences laws are susceptible to change with different variables, this isn’t true of the social sciences. You can always modulate the suicidal tension and torture of an environment to force a suicide. You can always sexually stratify sentient being to raise the suicide rates. These laws hold in very possible universe. Even the speed of light changes with entropy… the laws of gravity are gone in alternate planes experienced in the dream world. But the laws of sexual stratification and suicide hold for all planes and possible universes.
This is actually the hardest science we know of.
We know how to use infinity to turn 1 into zero and zero into 1 (not just my discoveries but others)… not even mathematics has laws this concrete. THAT’S why I don’t believe in God. Because clearly God would state the law of sexual stratification… I mean, we even know for a fact that adultery reduces suicide rates. So, John, I think calling the social sciences the “soft” sciences, shows some ignorance on your part.
Can you give any examples other than bonobos? There are actually factors other than indiscriminate sex that can explain why bonobos have developed to be relatively peaceful animals.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Also, it seems to me that sexual stratification would be a subset of social stratification, so why you’re focusing solely on the sexual component confuses me.
Nope… I can’t. I don’t know any species other than the Bonobo that isn’t sexually stratified, that doesn’t mean there aren’t any. I’d LOVE to hear these other factors, because sexual stratification is the biggest difference between chimps and Bonobos and their environmental pressures.
I know correlation doesn’t imply causality… but if a male does not defend the female denial system he is socially ostracized and sexually ostracized. Men have been saying to women for thousands of years, “Why don’t the nice guys get the most sex, or any sex for that matter.” And the females will refuse to have sex with men that say this. It’s worse than what happened to Galileo in terms of developing suicidality, at least galileo got laid, this is the line for helping to bring peace on earth and everyone shits on you, unless you sell out to fit in, it FORCES suicide. But someone who’s sold out to fit in wouldn’t understand that.
New user MagsJ? Anyways, the reason it causes suicide is multitudinal… everyone hates you for saying it, when it’s the only thing that causes world peace, and no religious text said it, which means there’s no God. This hits people VERY hard existentially.