Chipping away at that nebulous concept called world peace

I must warn people, firstly, that I have been banned from other boards for posting this and my posts have all been deleted. That may well happen here. If you do not want to read a taboo topic, I suggest you move on, because this is perhaps the most taboo topic on earth. I’m trying to have this discussion, and the dynamics involved in the topic are preventing me from having it.

The theory is that what receives the most sexual choice in a species will have the most effect in a power structure sense in that species.

The main reason I came up with this theory is because of personal observations and conversations from others that report that particularly during the male sexual peak, male bullies tend to have the most sexual choice, while female non-bullies tend to get the most sexual choice.

I put 2 and 2 together, from remembering a statistic that most violence in the world is committed by males aged 18-24. What I realized about this, is that this is exactly the male sexual peak. One would expect to see the behaviors that have worked best over time for drawing partners to be most pronounced during the sexual peaks!!!

So… from this observation about male bullies receiving more sexual choice during the male sexual peak and females bullies receiving less sexual choice during their sexual peak, I think I figured out why there is a difference in the aggression profiles of the genders!!! Sexual choice. I think on the male side is it actually a run-away sexual selection process that is not specifically tied to survival, but rather a conspicuous consumption form of aggression.

One example of this run-away sexual selection problem is the phenomenon of violent male prisoners receiving love letters from women, and violent female perpetrators not receiving them from men, for example, Ted Bundy proposed to a woman in court and she accepted the proposal while he was being tried for rapes and murders committed, Richard Ramirez (the nightstalker) got a marriage out of his killing spree as well. However, in discussing this with psychologists who determine whether someone is ready to be released, you don’t have to be a famous male convict to receive this type of attention, however for violent women, men don’t shower this degree of affection, which shows the runaway sexual selection process in the reverse, which is that men tend to shun masculine women in favor of less bullying and harsh women. One example of this is that men can do quite well sexually having the type of aggressive persona of shouting at someone “How are you doing!!!”, and I mean shouting at them, while if women had such a demeanor, men shun them sexually.

What I’ve concluded from this observation in general is that whatever receives the most sexual choice in a species will exert the most influence on how that species interacts in terms of bullying or non-bullying behavior.

What’s even more… there is a huge spike in the suicide rate for males at age 15-24, which is the beginning stages of the male sexual peak up to its end. Now keep in mind, more males commit suicide each year than all the wars and homicides combined!!!

Someone might point out that it is the increased testosterone which is accounting for rasher decisions. To this argument, I would point out that if this were true, the male suicide attempt rate would we much higher than the female suicide attempt rate, and it doesn’t explain the male suicide spike at the ages of 65-70+, which has decreased testosterone.

The actual theory that explains this behavior is that men tend to rescue depression with sexual intimacy (which is why women attempt so much more in a way that leaves them alive), while women tend to rescue bullying with sexual intimacy (trying to turn the bully into a perfect man). The rescuing that men do actually works at reducing the existential depression in women, which what women rescue does not reduce the aggression of men, it re-enforces the bullying.

What I figured out from this is that not only are male bullies getting the most sexual choice, but males are more sexually stratified than females are, perhaps under the 80/20 rule, so that 20% of males are getting 80% of the sex and the other 80% are only getting 20% of the sex… and there will be many more males than females who’ve had zero partners. This is very much like other animal species that have distributions (towards the bullies on the male side of 80-20 or even 10-90).

What I realized from this, is that I call it sexual neglect, and that sexual neglect has a bigger impact on human suicidality that just about anything else a human can endure.

BUT!!! It goes even further!!

What I realized is that existential suicidal completion is the end of the continuum on the suffering scale. And I realized something that shocked me! If you took all the serial killers, rapists, mass murderers and their regimes and you bunched all these people together, mostly who are males and you calculated the existential suicide rate from these people, it would only be a fraction of a percent compared to the existential suicides caused by female sexual choice. WAY more men have committed suicide from female sexual choice than committed suicide because of people like Stalin, Hitler and all their regimes combined!

The startling conclusion is that no matter how heinous THOSE people are, the average woman is actually more evil than they are, if you consider it as a regime of women!

BUT!! I figured out even more!! Females have a huge denial system about this, and even if they don’t, and they agree with all of it, they will refuse to have sex with people whom they even agree deserves it. But what I figured out is because of huge female denial, that males completely lose their sexual choice if they agree with the basic structure of this argument, and further understand that it is the most effective and falsifiable realization for reducing unwanted aggression in any species. So males will use all their intellect to try to destroy the argument, in order to rescue the female denial system and be their hero.

What this means, is that even though it’s the best answer that can possibly be given for how to chip away at that nebulous concept called world peace, that no matter how much evidence you have for the argument, that nobody will believe it!! Because of the way sexual choice is distributed!!

I will explain in depth additional phenomenon related to this. Look up “Love Shyness” on Wikipedia. Love Shyness is considered a dysfunction that can only be observed as having a deleterious effect upon men.

What love shyness entails is an incredible panic at showing attraction towards the opposite gender. What I’ve concluded, and is a much different conclusion than the work done on love shyness, is that it is the best game theory choice, rather than being a dysfunction! The reason is, because men will observe, often before puberty even begins, that women will show discomfort or complain to them or their friends about very ordinary approaches, and the love shy man says to themselves “Well, I won’t use that technique”, and then they’ll see a woman’s uncomfortable affect and body language as a guy flirts with them in a very ordinary way, and will file away “Well, I won’t use that technique.”, a guy looks at a women in a way that suggests attraction and the women shows offense, the guy will say, “Well I won’t do that either.” With a very short period of observation, the love shy males realize that women as a broad category don’t consent to approaches, and respecting this and the fact that men hardly complain in any way about any type of approach from women, realize that it’s best if they don’t approach and wait to be approached for not approaching. After all, they are the only men who are not trying to turn a “no” into a “yes”.

What happens is that these are the men who are behaving correctly to reduce the subliminal effect of “no” means “yes”, which is what is causing rapists to repeatedly think that rape is really what the woman wants, and they are, from a game theory point of view, also reducing the possible formation of aggression which could eventually encounter them.

What happens in the real world, is that these men will repeatedly watch women complain about men and then have sex with them, either hearing a woman complain to them about some man, or overhear her talking to friends, all the while being a person who is not complained about. It is this phenomenon which is causing tremendous violence against women and men alike, womens’ sexual choice being the main instigator of this violence. Men like to call these people, “men lacking confidence, or wimps”… this is the propaganda spewed trying to defend the female denial system to maintain sexual choice, when what they’re really doing is making the best game theory choice, which is not a matter of confidence at all. Leave it to the supposed “alpha” males to speculate that people who don’t approach women because they’re trying to prevent rape, suicide and homicide and torture “wimps”, and leave it to the ones who defend those behaviors to call themselves the worthy, the “alpha”.

We have a couple of cultural phrases that are very telling about this dynamic, one is “nice guys finish last”, which only refers to human sexuality, the other is “Don’t hate the player, hate the game.” which only refers to non-playing men… what it’s actually saying in a more diplomatic way is “Don’t hate the player, hate the women.” You can look online for the secrets of getting laid as a man, and the secret to all these sites is, be a jerk, hundred of sites like this online, not one site like this for women who are looking to get sex. The culture is screaming as loud as it possibly could that this phenomenon is really occurring. It even goes so far as to define the word “Dickhead” which is behavior men do to get sex as a synonym of “asshole or jerk”. There is no such statement about being a vagina head or a pussy head, this is because less aggressive women get the most sexual choice, while more aggressive men get the most sexual choice.

One aspect which is having an effect on decreased suicide in women is that men are more polyamorous than women are, their infidelity and increased polyamory is actually giving more women access to highly desirable mates which is causing their decreased suicide rates. It is common for women to be more polyamorous when they are younger, giving the bullies most of the sexual choice and variety and then settling down with a monoamory which doesn’t allow for the reward system to balance itself out, which is mainly why men continue to be highly suicidal throughout life.

If you don’t already believe the phenomenal amount of evidence there is to support this idea, then I offer you an experiment to falsify it.

Divide the experiment into 4 different types of school.

School 1: Only the male bullies get sex from women (all the women are in on the study and none of the men are)

School 2: Only the male non-bullies get sex from women (all the women are in on the study and none of the males are)

School 3: Only the female bullies get sex from men (all of the men are in on the study and one of the women are)

School 4: Only the female non-bullies get sex from men (all of the men are in on the study and none of the women are)

What this study is to determine is whether sexual choice is causal for increased aggression and existential suicide. The grades you can only really control for are 7-12, after that the schools become too large to control for. The study would need to have about 40,000 participants and would cost billions of dollars to do. But it is falsifiable. My best guess from watching this phenomenon is that the results would be so horrific, that the study would be closed due to ethical considerations before grade 12 was completed.

Once you know that sexual choice is causal for existential depression and increased aggression, then you have proof of which behavior is more evil.

What I’ve come to understand about this phenomenon is that women have massive denial about this, even women who agree with every bit of it, even women who agree that this man or that man deserve sex for being who they are, they deserve the most sexual choice, will still refuse to have sex with them, simply stating, “Well, that’s just the way it is.”. Some remarks to combat the argument are, “Well if humans are like other species, then those species can’t go to hell for just being themselves, therefor I can’t get any bad karma for only having sex with bullies.” I’ve noticed the types of apologetics for this realization are astounding. What I’ve concluded is that it is a sociopathy, not a complete lack of empathy as sociopathy is usually defined, but a targeted lack of empathy where it matters more than any other type, so by this estimation, the worst form to have.

As bad as a male is for denying this argument to maintain their sexual choice, women are even worse for giving most the bullies the most sexual choice, because it is the root behavior for existential suicide, torture, brutality, rape and homicide. Males can be horrible people, but because sexual choice has more of an impact on bullying behavior, men actually balance out at better people because they tend to shun more aggressive women, they pick better partners than women do. While I think those things are awful, the one I single out as the most horrendous is the behavior that causes the most existential depression, because it is the end of the continuum of the suffering scale. Less people have killed themselves in concentration camps and gulags and prisons than have killed themselves because male bullies get most the sex. Obviously one is a much more severe crime than the other.

Please feel free to ask any questions or make any comments!!!

Some other stuff and re-phrases from earlier notes, not necessary to read but may clarify certain comments.

I would simply suggest that over time the behaviors which correspond to high testosterone, assuming this is the case, have received the most sexual choice over-time, which is why we see this increase.
I say this similarly to once when someone suggested that the male suicide rates are higher because males are less likely to share their feelings and seek help than women, and I simply pointed out that if this is true, then what do you think caused this acculturation, it would be that such behaviors have received the most sexual choice over time. Besides, males tend to rescue depression, which actually works, and women tend to rescue bullying by trying to make the perfect man out of the bully, which has a negative effect because it re-enforces the behavior. So from the male point of view it doesn’t actually work to seek help for depression in terms of drawing in sexual intimacy, while with women it does… which is also the reason why women attempt suicide way more, but men complete way more.

If I remember correctly, the two suicide spikes happen during adolescence and at ages 65-70+ for males. Now you can’t simply argue using your own argument structure, that testosterone is responsible for the spike at the later ages. One more brief comment to the testosterone argument. The testosterone argument doesn’t explain why women attempt suicide 3 times more than men do, if the testosterone argument were true, men would be committing not only more completed suicides, but more attempts than women. My theory that men rescue depression with sexual intimacy and women don’t has explanitory power, while the testosterone argument has none when looking at it through the suicide attempt lens.

I would argue that males who have superior verbal abilities receive less sexual choice than the more physical expressions that seem to accumulate the most sexual choice amongst men. (in response to the point that high testosterone decreases verbal skills, which I’m not sure is true, because I have high testosterone, but whatever)

There are other clues to this phenomenon:

1.) We have a cultural phrase “Nice guys finish last” which specifically is about sexual choice and not something like money etc… I would even point out that Dawkins, in his video “Nice guys finish first” was making this video more to maintain high sexual choice rather than confront the common wisdom held in the multi-cultural phrase.
2.) If you are a man looking to find out how to get sex from women by searching the internet, you will find hundreds of sites that teach you the “secrets” and what all these sites have in common, is that the secret is to be a bigger jerk. You will not find a single site like this for women.
3.) If you simply walk down the street and ask 100 men, 1000 men, a million men, “Do you think jerks get more sexual choice at the male sexual peak than non-bullies?” Almost every single one will reply “yes, of course.”

What’s interesting about this to me is that it is a universal understanding amongst men and even many women, and it is ok to make this claim, although it will somewhat reduce sexual choice with women, but the argument you cannot make, because it will completely erase sexual choice with women, is that sexual choice is responsible causally for violence and existential depression. Males cannot make this argument without completely losing their sexual choice, because it is the line that women draw with their denial system and agreement structure to have sex with someone.

I don’t want to explore what men call the “prostitution argument” about women. I’m much more interested right now in covering the increased bullying and increased existential depression.

The guy who hits their hand on their chest and contorts their face and when someone with Downs Syndrome walks by has a much better chance of getting the Prom queen than someone who never does this, not that prom king or queen are important.

I divide my argument into two groups, the bullies getting more sexual choice, and less culturally relevant males getting more sexual choice. Your average musician or sports player is going to have more sexual choice than someone who makes a strain of wheat that helps feed a billion people or your average sociologist, and this in and of itself is problematic.

I don’t think the theory is upside down as you state, that men receive more sexual choice because they are powerful, I think bullying gets more sexual choice which provides more beneficial chemical exchanges such as oxytocin which leads to more success.

I think if women suddenly had a rule that men who used only a gallon of water a week to bathe themselves in received the sexual choice and those who used more didn’t, that almost every male on earth would use only a gallon of water a week to bathe themselves. It is sexual choice which is having an effect on the decreased aggression profile of women as well, which is that men are turned off by bullying or “masculine” women. One place this is evident is in the prison system, where you have famous and not famous violent offenders who are male getting all these love letters and marriages, but violent females don’t get those at all. What this speaks to, is that even though there are billions of women who wouldn’t have anything to do with the most extreme cases, there is a runaway sexual selection problem occurring on the male side because of female sexuality.

The easiest way to test this is to divide the study into 4 schools:

One school only the female bullies get sex
One school only the female non-bullies get sex
One school only the male bullies get sex
One school only the male non-bullies get sex

Then check the levels of aggression in the respective genders and also the existential suicide rates. It’s falsifiable. I actually think with all the info already there, the common sense, as you will, that this has already been falsified, but I would point out that there are certainly methods which could put an exclamation point on that common wisdom.

I would also point out that women by choosing more sexist men, are actually sexually selecting their own oppression and glass ceiling.

I just thought of something to add to this which is having an impact on the suicidality and aggression.

Women complain about all types of approach much more than men do. Sometimes the same approach that was complained about in one person will work for another person. It is very common for men to see however that bullying behavior and approaches receive much more complaint from women than men, men hardly ever complain about approaches of any kind. What men do in seeing this, is they get excited, because they realize that if they don’t approach women, they will be less complained about and if they aren’t bullies they will be less complained about, not only will they be less complained about, presumably they will receive the most compliments and get the most sexual choice… it is these men who become very excited about getting the most sexual choice, nobody calls them a jerk after all. The reality of what occurs is crushing, which is that those men that women do complain about end up becoming flings and even boyfriends and the people who take the path that makes the most sense, not being a bully and not approaching women are the ones who are lucky to get even a single female partner. One group will have something like 20-30 female partners and the other group is lucky to even have 1 by college age.

I would also like to point out that one of the problems that makes sexual neglect a larger problem on the male side than the female side is that men are more polyamorous than women are, which means that there are more high quality partners to choose from for women than there are for men. Women have more to look forward to in this regard. It seems ironic, but the increased infidelity and polyamory of men is decreasing the suicide rate of women.

What I’ve realized is that sexual choice is such a valued commodity that the brain of males will take the subconscious data that they will completely lose their sexual choice with women if they agree with it, and it will automatically, as if they are a robot, start spewing apologetics that make no rational sense. I think this process happens because they want to maintain their sexual choice and also don’t want to confront the reality that their sweet woman is actually, in fact, more evil than people they think are extremely evil, part of the trick that occurs here is that women tend to be less bullying and more nurturing on every other metric other than who they do and don’t have sex with, it’s a pervasive illusion that can fool even the brightest of minds. The bullying and acting out of males is, however, not coming from a vacuum, and we would do well to be mindful of it’s source.

Not likely.

As for the rest, two words;
“Causal conflation.”

… not to mention WAY too long to merely introduce a behavioral theory (belonging in the Psych forum).

I agree largely with the premise of the OP’s thread. It meets my approval.

Welcome to ILP Commentary.

I give it less than a day that the resident feministas and manginas of ILP will come into this thread to complain.

I realized after posting this that what I briefly saw as a section on government politics and economics was also the section on sociology, although I personally think it also has a well deserved spot in philosophy, perhaps the Mods will decide… I didn’t see a psych forum. I’m new though.

You think the causal conflation is from two disparate phenomenon (increased bullying and increased suicidality) coming from the same phenomenon? You didn’t make yourself clear, so I had to guess what you thought was the causal conflation.

If you do, I can certainly explain how they both arise from the same conditions, the basic answer being that more intelligent males abstract the broader implications of female sociopathy and human sexuality and simply leave once they figure it out, even if to a large degree some of it resides in their subconscious and is not fully articulated yet.
e

There’s a reason why the very sexual bonobos compared to very judgemental or repressive females of chimps and human beings are the more peaceful.

A very sexually expressive social dynamic like the bonobos reduces conflict.

Once sexual repression enters the dynamic violence increases.

Human women only increase this violence as they are the most judgemental towards men by a class system basis. This is why so much conflict and violence is caused by what I like to define as female instigation. Women try to pretend they’re ignorant of all of this, but on a subconscious level they know all this to be true.

It gets even better with modern civilization’s decadence. Now we all live in the era of a perceived crisis of overpopulation. Having less and less offspring at least in western civilization is the name of the game now. Then you have the introduction of careerism being that all jobs are either high tech and demand lots of various training where people are either having no children or waiting til much later to have any at all. Add in how women judge men on a class based system with the commodification of all relationships and what you see is a sexually frustrated society where tensions or stresses are high. This of course helps shape a very violent and socially inequal society all the more.

I try not to come at it from a class perspective, because it’s actually a lot of complex variables, should we all divide our wealth equally and each have 5000 dollars? One person will gamble it away in 1 minute. Not all people are as responsible with money as others, and I find money a useful abstraction for resource exchange. I do think social stratification would decrease if the more nurturing males were given the most sexual choice, but that’s incidental to the theory at large, which is that it causes violence, and IMO most importantly such severe suffering that it causes existential depression that is expressed by suicide.

I think they know it too. One of the biggest mistakes that happened in human history is somewhere, the elites decided to teach us that we are not animals, and are not subject to the same laws as all the other species in the whole universe are subject to. It is a species law, that whatever receives the most sexual choice will reproduce in affect. I think more sensitive males understand that sheer brutality and horror which is the female mind and often times simply become so overwhelmed by it that they just leave. I think once they see the magnitude of it, which is like half the population of the world, it’s an extremely depressing revelation.

You’re making a very good point, one I’ve tried, mostly unsuccessfully, to make before. You’ve just pounded the final nail in the coffin of the form of liberalism which is known to have come out of the sixties. You’re speaking of certain, often unspoken of, type of ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. The ‘haves’ of course will ignore or ridicule you as a defense, most ‘have nots’ are either naively hopeful, too engrained (but on the wrong end of the pole) with the ‘haves’, or just not really literate enough to understand what you write.

It seems your chipping away at world peace as if you may have just barely figured out its impossibility. We must all go at our own pace, but I suggest you jump ahead; stop referring to evil and good, nihilate all concepts related to the concept of "morality. Why put yourself through this? You need to know who are worth speaking to in these regards. There are people who’ve managed to subdue there ape-like impulses and pursue true nobility; reaching the historical peak of humanity.

I don’t necessarily mean consciously, but by avoiding swinging in the trees with the apes, then as a result failing to get the education they would need to become one of the ‘haves’. These people, known for their discerning intellect; through the arts, literature and philosophy, are superior. They may be conflicted if asked to state their goals, but their actions speak for them.

This is what may be hardest to accept, but is essential, if you want to get past this. There are those who have essentially been given all types of baseness. They have them despite themselves. But, what of it? If they are of the mind that would never have pursued them otherwise then they are not one to shun. Those I’d advice shunning are those who either ‘have’ because they’d do nothing but swing through the trees and those who ‘have not’, but not for a lack of chest pounding. They represent most people. Perhaps it’s a waste to direct what you write to them. Don’t ask that they understand you. Even the self-named “humanitarians” are just as vile as anyone and its very unbecoming to try to appeal to them with their own illusionary sense of “fairness” and unearned respect; no less useless and base as it is to pursue world peace as a pastime.

Likely you’re better than most. Those who have potential are unlikely to miss the glaringly obvious flaw in the very bases of the idea of equality, that relating to the fundamental inequalities in mating. The merely slightly evolved ape brain, indicative of low humanity, can reason, but not reason in those matters. They obsess with mating (being apes) but they can never properly apply the subject to any other matters. To them it’s mysteriously interwoven in the fabrics of their mind and they’d never seriously attempt to untangle it.

I mean world peace is not digesting bacteria in our digestive systems, try doing that!!! World peace is nonsense. Something occurred to me today, actually a couple of things.

I already knew this: If my argument is true, (and it is), then there was no beneficent creator of all of this, because the most basic law for any species is about sexual choice having a causal effect on behavior. You won’t find this law in any religion including Buddhism… but at least the Buddhists, unlike every other world religion, use a scientific approach “try that, and if it’s false or doesn’t work, get back to me, don’t take my word for it.”

What I realized today was about all the times I’ve heard apologists for a divine creator constantly use the omnipotence argument to defend their being “Well God can do it even if it’s a contradiction… God is omnipotent, so God can be omnipotent and not exist at all nor have ever existed.” What I realized was, if God is omnipotent, then God could, for every being in all of existence, make them happy from birth and make them happier each additional second of their lives, everyone in all of existence, forever and ever and ever, without ever needing suffering with which to discern happiness from. There is no contradiction here for a supremely omnipotent being that is benevolent.

Another thing I realized is that the Buddhists claim that the Buddha discovered something, namely the laws of Karma which presumably explain why some people are smart, attractive, dull, ugly… but it’s really not an explanation at all, because it doesn’t explain why some people made good or bad decisions in the first place to get good or bad karma.

You tell me not to distinguish good and evil, I actually hate the word evil… it’s too religious in connotation… I should have used heinous throughout the whole post. However, I do think sexual injustice is perhaps the biggest injustice that exists, the implications of it speak to all dimensions of existence and not just our own. I have a pessimistic view of life, in that, I believe that if I decide there is no such thing as evil, I’m putting a big sticker on my being that says “Hey! Everyone who likes to torture people, torture me forever and ever and ever, because guess what, I don’t believe it matters, and guess what, if you do it to me, you won’t be punished!!” I wouldn’t wish that upon anyone.

Whether agreeing with the OP or not, i do not see any reason why it should be banned here at ILP or any other philosophy forum.

with love,
sanjay

Who do you think are the primary instigators of class stratification? Women are! Men wouldn’t do half the shit they do if it wasn’t for the sexual impetus to mate which women are the controlling force behind.

Women of course are the most choosy, selfish, and judgmental sexually where they are the primary force behind social division or stratification. I’m surprised most writers or authors ignore this facet, however in the era of political correctness it should come to no surprise.

The men at the top of power and control merely use this programmed genetic hard-wiring of human beings against all the male subordinates as a way of controlling them.

Do not forget that facet also.

Or they come to the realization like me that women are fucking whorish prostitutes where if men are disposable to women sure hell enough women can be just as equally disposable to men. Fuck them bitches! I understand suicide, but I’m not a supporter of it. I’m all about getting even with revenge.

Excellent book.

Some stratification occurs because some people are more responsible than others and provide more valuable services than others. I did state that social stratification would decrease substantially if women gave the kindest men the most sexual choice… we’re not in disagreement there. ALOT of social stratification is caused by women for sure. But like I said earlier, I’m much more interested in what causes suffering so extreme that it makes rape, torture and murder look like a walk in the park, in terms of what actually induces completed suicides. I personally believe that all war and homicide and suicide, even the female ones, come from female sexuality. Women aren’t going to understand that magnitude of sexual neglect, nor the magnitude of the best men in the world having the least sexual choice in the species, these are both discriminations they will not encounter. What’s interesting about women, is that on some level, they HAVE to know it’s true, but there is nothing being done about it culturally, nobody is trying to think of a solution. I honestly don’t know what happens to women “karmicaly” for this if life continues on after all this is done, the average woman certainly is more evil than someone like Ted Bundy, but you have to understand, that Ted Bundy raping those women immediately made him undeserving of those sexual selections. I don’t think the answer is necessarily revenge, perhaps the answer is more about having a merit system where certain achievements earn males a designated number of partners of their choosing, or perhaps you can take women to court for having sex with bullies and have mandatory sentences of the requirement to have sex with non-bullies.

One thing that’s very useful about trying to determine who is most deserving of sex is that you use natural selection to put the emphasis on people solving ethics equations, which has never been done in history, and by placing the sexual pressure there, you will end up with geniuses of ethics and explanations of reality, which I think our history has been lacking, because there is not really any sexual pressure being applied here.

Commentary, only a couple years ago I was exactly where you are philosophically. It stands to reason that your going to have to improve philosophically at your own pace, but perhaps you can progress faster than I did. But, I can’t help you much with your issues with religion, its too boring a topic for me now, its all trash. You will never be subject to eternity, in a good way a bad way. You don’t need to worry about amorality putting you in a position, physically, or psychologically where others can hurt you more; trust me, the world acts without any thought towards morality, despite the rhetoric.

As you associate more and more with people who reject all the ill-conceived concepts such as morality, world peace, liberalism, egalitarianism, etc., you may get the impression that you need to become hardened, completely. But, not completely. As I said earlier, you simply need to pick your friends. I advice embracing what family you can, if you have any who are worth it. Then embrace any friends you have who have proven themselves, reject the rest as those who you would do nothing more than use if associate with at all, then work towards finding friends who are worth being your friends.

Having a community is important, its natural, as people have in the form of tribes for most of human history. But, keep in mind even the most kind hearted member of a tribe, cared nothing for the rest of the world; its a sickness to try to believe you care about people you’ve yet to know and may never know.

 Stuart: I think it's off to say anyone is ahead or behind philosophically, everyone is at their own space. Whether there is any contingency between the points of view, is a matter of either discernment or likeness.  To define friends as a matter of how these opinions come into play, is regressive like earlier associations memories instill some kind of resonance within us.

The regression to earlier memories is logically superior, we discern those differences, within the new ontology, primarily, and not on basis of what someone may have said of associations in general.

Particularly in the form of described “isms” as hitherto failed or succeeded forms of social organisation.

Primarily religion need not be a boring topic at all, it need to reintegrate within the new scientific religions such as are literally spelled out as: science of mind, scientology, christian science, and the list goes on. There is a movement to close the unified field, for a new reemregence based on some kind of rapproachment with archaic beliefs. These believes are sacred, and the sanctity have been supposedly disproved only within the last few hundred years.

It is not the cosmic ego playing virtual games forever, it is the very self consciousness of the center, which is probably a totally entropic, absolute of it’s self.

This isn’t happening tomorrow or yesterday, it is now, the moment, that we deny and perpetually try to escape from. This moment, is a sacred time, but only for those who live in it.

I try to see parallels in others to myself. I forgot how, but supposedly you and others have criticized me for that, as if I can’t see someone for who they are outside of who I am. Perhaps you can refresh my memory on that. And also, I know religion is not a boring subject, I’m just taking a long break from it.

I wanted to clarify something if it didn’t stand out before. If you make it so that the best arguments of who is most ethical receive the most sexual choice, you will put the selective pressure on ethical arguments and explanations of reality, it will put the selective pressure on falsifiable philosophy. You will have people needing to defend their right to have sex with argument and merit.
This has not been done in human history, and the result would be ethical and descriptive genius of reality. The problem of female sexuality is that it instills an apathy to solving complex problems… "Well I may be able to create a button that teleports someone to a prison cell every time they do something to harm someone and give everyone the ability to google search peoples thoughts and emotional states throughout history so they can verify the teleportation was proper and describe reality in ways that compels people to not want to harm others etc… etc… etc… but I won’t get laid for it!! So screw it, I’ll just watch TV. I may be able to solve all of Hilbert’s problems… but I won’t get laid for it, so whatever, I’ll go have a drink at the bar and consider my methods for suicide. This is the REAL life of men. Women honestly don’t have any comprehension of this aspect of life, not only are the best men on earth receiving the least sexual choice, the runaway sexual selection problem that is creating men to be more aggressive than women is compounded by the fact that the best men are also suiciding.

What we need is a merit system for sexual credit. And enforceable prison for those who violate the system. The act of having sex with a bully over a non-bully is the WORST human crime, if you can prove someone did it and they refuse to have sex with something like 5 non-bullies for every bully they had sex with, they should either get life in prison or perhaps the death penalty. People can’t seem to get it through their thick skulls that sexual neglect of high merit is what causes most of the suicide in the world. People will endure poverty, torture, rape, murder of all loved ones and all of this, and it is crushingly extreme, is literally a walk in the park on the suffering spectrum compared to being sexually rejected for a bully or a less culturally relevant person than yourself. It is the root of all violence, and the people who are sensitive to it internalize all of the suffering of human history when they are sexually passed over for a bully, and that is a form of suffering most women cannot even comprehend. Women have the luxury to see the glass half full, because they have sex with all the assholes, enjoy it, and don’t receive any consequence for as was stated earlier in this thread, being the instigators for the worlds preventable ills, they settle down in monogamy (marriage which is unethical in itself) and decide that because they might even have been the rare woman haven’t slept with any assholes that their work is done. This is a matter of eternal vigilance, you cannot settle as a monogamist and participate in balancing the scales of the sheer horror of female sexuality during the male sexual peak, where only a small percentage of the males are receiving 80-90% of all the female variety and they are the biggest jerks.

Quite simply, men CHOOSE better than women do when it comes to sexual partners, which is WHY women are less violent and why women commit less suicide.

Maybe if you solve all of Hilbert’s problems you get a credit of 3000 sexual selections, any woman in the world you want etc… Until we begin to move in this direction, the suicide rate is going to continue to be high, the psychosis rate is going to continue to be high, the acting out is going to continue to be high, because we (mostly women) are violating the most sacred law of any species that has to do with whether people suffer or don’t in the myriad of ways this manifests itself.

I suppose that’s my point, to perhaps be more articulate.

I wanted to add that a whole day passed from when I replied to Tyrannus because I was still under the probationary period for my first 5 posts, then the post was finally added to the thread, it ended up in the middle and didn’t bump the thread to the top, so, you, Tyrannus, might have missed it.