A woman's 7 year secret

[wayword]

If you can explain that one within the framework of darwinian evolution then I am all ears.

As RT said, the instinct to preserve the species may override the instinct to preserve the individual in many species...

Next?

 

[treefingers]

RT,

The meerkats you give an example for is an example of kin selection. Meerkat groups are basically one very large extended family so for one to sacrifice for the group makes sense since basically they are all of the same family and genetic legacy. I am not aware of any species of animal that will give its life to save the life of an unrelated(in terms of family) animal unless there is some sort of reward that outweighs the risk.

The problem with the whole 'people sacrifice themselves for the whole group even if they aren't related' thing is this:

Let's say there is a sacrifice gene. The problem is that if these people sacrifice themselves for people who are unrelated to themselves before they have the chance to have kids (like the soldier I mentioned) they...

1 Don't have the chance to pass on the sacrifice gene to future generation(ie less sacrificers in future generations)

2 They receive NO genetic benefit from their sacrifice because they have no children to benefit from the ongoing survival of the group. The survival of the group has no meaning (genetically speaking) if one is dead and has no children.


Also let it be known that altruism in relation to kin selection is a valid thing and there is a definite genetic benefit to doing it.

But in the scientific community it is still highly debatable whether there really is any genetic benefit at all to someone who sacrifices for unrelated people or a group/society of people who are unrelated if the person in question has not yet have children. And if there is a genetic benefit it is hard to see it outweighing the cost of giving up your life (and your only chance at passing on your genes)

 

[Hitman10000]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI0MLZmQ4vE

 

[Victory Unlimited]

Yo Hit,



THAT dude is dancin' his ASS OFF!!!!!! :crackup:

 

[Phyzzle]

speaking of sexual selection

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/2007/01/why-idiots-prevail.html

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Let's say there is a sacrifice gene.

You're assuming this is a genetic imperative - and you might be correct - but not all behavior is prompted by genetics. It's a nature vs. nurture debate; it's entirely possible that self-sacrifice is a learned behavior. In fact I'd argue that it is since our natural inclination is to avoid pain and seek pleasure.

When an object flies too close to our faces our natural reaction is to flinch. When we hear a sudden loud noise all our attention (not to mention an adrenaline rush) is devoted to the source by our being startled. Our 'fight or flight' instinct is another example of how our psychology is interwoven with our biologies in order to give us the best chance of survival. No one taught us to be startled or to flinch - we do it autonomously. We have to train and learn to supress these instincts in order to perform certain actions. In martial arts or gymnastics people have to condition themselves not to react in ways our preservation instincts would otherwise tell us not to.

Likewise, a meerkat may learn this behavior by seeing it performed enough times. That's not to say there may not be a genetic predisposition for the behavior inherent in meerkats, but it's nature and nurture interacting. So perhaps the soldier first to throw himself on a grenade saw this act performed before (in a movie) or had heard/read stories of the same act of valor from senior soldiers. It may also have been a simple issue of practicality - without knowing the details, one particular soldier may have simply been the closest guy to the grenade so he jumped on it.

 

[Latinoman]

I agree 100% with lee36044 post #61 in this thread.

 

[Scaramouche]

A bit of a ****** in the woodpile here but the kid is really the most important aspect to consider...go to lower forms of life to explain your emotions,I have a dog its a mongrel Staffy but I love that dog we have bonded and I have impacted my personality on that dog I couldn't live without that dog...Having said that yeah clean up the paternity issue and if it goes against the putative father then tell the kid but also say that he still has the same feelings of affection towards him....Children finding out later causes real feelings of resentment,a seven year old will handle it very well and respect his step father....The concomittent problem of the infidelity well not so easy this is for him to work out...

 

[Mr. Me]

Read and heard of similar cases in which the Judge made the man pay child support (even if the kid was not his), because of "the best interest of the child" (and the child already thinking the dude is his dad).

Despite what the courts claim, I think it's really because, in most cases, it's probably impossible to track down the real dad. He's long disappeared. And so they don't have men abandoning support.

This is I think why a paternity test should be part of the procedure done to obtain a birth certificate instead of simply naming a father on it. They should authenticate what they put on that certificate.

Whether or not the child is his, how can he stay in a marriage where he forever knows she betrayed him? Where he forever knows she can't be trusted? Where he forever knows she has no integrity?

 

[( . )( . )]

I say fvck him, more power to her.

If I was a chick you better believe I'm finding some bozo to raise my sprog(Look at the awesome abundance of complete douchery of men I get to choose from :cheer: ) after I'm done having fun with the azzholes of course.

This is the life we MEN created for ourselves. Embrace it.

The chick is neither here nor there imho and is free of ALL accountablity. She is merely exercising her available options given to her by YOU and YOURS.........when was it women got to vote 1917? Can you say "snowball effect"

Good times, for a man who knows what the fvck is really going on

Give a chimp a gun, dont be pissed when it shoots you and all that.

In short, you go girl you crazy henid.

 

[ketostix]

Despite what the courts claim, I think it's really because, in most cases, it's probably impossible to track down the real dad. He's long disappeared. And so they don't have men abandoning support.

The thing is it shouldn't be the court's responsibility or the man who's not the farther to compesate for a woman's lack in being able to track down the real father. It was her actions and it should be her responsibilty to find a willing and real father.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

50% of all Christian men and 20% of all Christian women are addicted to pornography

Biology trumps conviction.

sorry dude, but your link is worthless, at best.

From the articled:

"The group defines "addicted" as applied to pornography as use on an ongoing basis....
The poll, conducted at ChristiaNet.com, used a self-selected sample, and is therefore not a scientific study. Over 1,000 users responded to the survey.
"

addicted? hardly
use? yea. so what you are saying is since HALF of a church admits to looking at porn on a regular basis (who knows the frequency) that supports your claim that biology trumps conviction?

if biology always trumped conviction, what about the other 50%? what about the marriages where people DON't cheat? why isn't everybody a fat tub?

if a stranger from a different race walked over to you at mcdonalds and stole your big mac, why don't you beat him to death right there on the spot?

evolution also provided us with a highly programmable brain, which makes us quite the mix of biology AND conviction (or a mix of instinctual behaviors along with "learned" or programmed behaviors).


Bottom line, if a man or woman values his or her marriage, he or she won't cheat.
And when I say value, I don't mean as in "its not the right thing to do."
When I say value, I mean "this is soo important to me I don't want to fukk it up"

I think what most people are missing out here, is that instead of looking at this and saying "goddammm women are fukked up beetches" he should do this, or he shoudl do that, or boy the law is fukked up, or goddamm society is a mess, what an enlighted DJ should be doing is saying to himself..

"hmm, what would be the best, most efficient way to make sure I choose a woman that won't do this to me AND how should I ACT so that she won't WANT to do this to me?"

right choice, right action. this will NEVER happen to you.

 

[guru1000]

use? yea. so what you are saying is since HALF of a church admits to looking at porn on a regular basis (who knows the frequency) that supports your claim that biology trumps conviction?

if biology always trumped conviction, what about the other 50%? what about the marriages where people DON't cheat? why isn't everybody a fat tub?

This Justification Card of "Biology Trumps Conviction" was already put to REST. One who lacks accountability will use this IDEALOGY to justify his transgressions.

One with Discipline or High Character (as I call it) will not succumb to his biology. His CHARACTER trumps his biological need.

CONTROL is the trademark of a Don Juan.

Once the cheating rate in a marriage reaches 100%, then we can all agree on this ABSOLUTE of the Biology Trump Card.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

The subject group defined the conditions for the term for "addiction." Whether or not that gels with your definition, my definition or a medical definition is irrelevant, it's the rules they defined for themselves/

They also define the terms of what makes for their own conviction (i.e. whacking off to porno is a sin). However, in 50% of the male and 20% of the female control group these two definitions are incongruous. They conflict, why?

This survey is admittedly unscientific, but I could easily make the point that 90% of self-described christian men (again subjective) "use" pornography as defined and only 50% were honest enough to admit it just as readily as assume the other 50% are living in marital bliss.

There is absolutely no claim in this thread or in the "study" that people are uncontrollable sex addicts, rutting like wild animals at the slightest prompt. OBVIOUSLY we can control our biological impulses to varying degrees, that never has been my assertion. My assertion is that this instinctual behavior WILL find a way to manifest itself - porno "use" being one manifestation. You can get laid with your wife, a hooker or your gay lover, but the impulse is the same - it's the manifestation that's different. Sexual repression isn't going eliminate the need for it to be manifested. There are socially acceptable ways of expressing sexuality and others that aren't, but these are subjective to the individual. Pedophilia and incest are universally unacceptable and reprehensible expressions of sexuality in the extreme, but they are driven by the same instinct you have when you "make love" to your pure and virginic wife on your wedding night.

It's people with such extreme convictions who agonize over their constant inability to find a healthy balance of this instinct and their expression of it who create this vicious cycle by imposing more repression and more conditions for acceptability on others while they themselves write their own rule for their own conditions. We call that hypocrisy, but it's easier to rationalize it away when you turn your own necessity into a virtue and expect others to be equally as virtuous.

That's not a license to go run hedonistic riot irresponsibly over creation. It's not anarchy and it's not an excuse for behavior, nor is it a free pass for a crime. It's understanding the impulse and how it will find it's own level in its manifestation, if you DON'T control it, and if you DON'T express it. The men and women in this study think they need therapy and spiritual counseling because, despite their conviction they still find themselves getting off to porn, when in fact this is the healthiest expression of their sexuality within the confines of their conditions and may be a result of them "valuing their marriage" enough to do that rather than divorce or have an affair. That's not to say they COULDN'T control themselves and cut off the porn, but the impulse is still going to manifest in some fashion.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

One who lacks accountability will use this IDEALOGY to justify his transgressions.

Horsesh!t. These are the words subjective, moral idealists will put into the mouths of others in an attempt to deny a side of themselves that they're uncomfortable with. The assumption is that this is a "devil made me do it so forgive me" free pass, while it turns a blind eye (once again) to what drives that behavior. That's what makes absolutists fidgety. "If you were just a better person you would control yourself", OK, but why do I still WANT to ƒuck?

What's a more effective way of curbing teen pregnancy and STDs? Hand out condoms or tell them they need to be better people and abstain from sex altogether? The jury is in on that one - the abstinence tract statistically increases both. But now I'm going to sound like I'm giving the kids a free pass for biologically wanting to ƒuck, while the moralist will go on decrying how it's the parents fault or the lack of integrity in society, or any other nebulous truism that moralistic sheep will shake their heads to. See how that works?

Now, for the umpteenth time; acknowledging our own biology as the root cause of behavior is NOT AN EXCUSE FOR THE BEHAVIOR. It only prove an ignorance of it to keep building the same straw man over and over.

 

[Latinoman]

sorry dude, but your link is worthless, at best.

From the articled:

"The group defines "addicted" as applied to pornography as use on an ongoing basis....
The poll, conducted at ChristiaNet.com, used a self-selected sample, and is therefore not a scientific study. Over 1,000 users responded to the survey.
"

addicted? hardly
use? yea. so what you are saying is since HALF of a church admits to looking at porn on a regular basis (who knows the frequency) that supports your claim that biology trumps conviction?

if biology always trumped conviction, what about the other 50%? what about the marriages where people DON't cheat? why isn't everybody a fat tub?

if a stranger from a different race walked over to you at mcdonalds and stole your big mac, why don't you beat him to death right there on the spot?

evolution also provided us with a highly programmable brain, which makes us quite the mix of biology AND conviction (or a mix of instinctual behaviors along with "learned" or programmed behaviors).


Bottom line, if a man or woman values his or her marriage, he or she won't cheat.
And when I say value, I don't mean as in "its not the right thing to do."
When I say value, I mean "this is soo important to me I don't want to fukk it up"

I think what most people are missing out here, is that instead of looking at this and saying "goddammm women are fukked up beetches" he should do this, or he shoudl do that, or boy the law is fukked up, or goddamm society is a mess, what an enlighted DJ should be doing is saying to himself..

"hmm, what would be the best, most efficient way to make sure I choose a woman that won't do this to me AND how should I ACT so that she won't WANT to do this to me?"

right choice, right action. this will NEVER happen to you.

Hmmmm...this is actually a pretty good response.

 

[guru1000]

My assertion is that this instinctual behavior WILL find a way to manifest itself - porno "use" being one manifestation. You can get laid with your wife, a hooker or your gay lover, but the impulse is the same - it's the manifestation that's different. Sexual repression isn't going eliminate the need for it to be manifested.

WILL is an absolute; MAY is not.

You suggest biology WILL manifest itself one way or another.

Sure a priest, for example, may use masterbation as a form of manifestation. This is his CONTROL.

The problem lies when you use the BIOLOGY card to justify his molestation of young boys.

All the guys serving double life sentences in the PENN will not be dropping the soap.

This is the difference.

 

[guru1000]

Horsesh!t. These are the words subjective, moral idealists will put into the mouths of others in an attempt to deny a side of themselves that they're uncomfortable with. The assumption is that this is a "devil made me do it so forgive me" free pass, while it turns a blind eye (once again) to what drives that behavior. That's what makes absolutists fidgety. "If you were just a better person you would control yourself", OK, but why do I still WANT to ƒuck?

Hey Rollo, suppress your testosterone levels to under 200 ng/dl and then tell me you want to f*ck.

What's a more effective way of curbing teen pregnancy and STDs? Hand out condoms or tell them they need to be better people and abstain from sex altogether? The jury is in on that one - the abstinence tract statistically increases both. But now I'm going to sound like I'm giving the kids a free pass for biologically wanting to ƒuck, while the moralist will go on decrying how it's the parents fault or the lack of integrity in society, or any other nebulous truism that moralistic sheep will shake their heads to. See how that works?

Do you RECOGNIZE the difference between teens f*cking and infidelity?

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

You're only making my points for me.

 

[guru1000]

Im glad we agree. Looks like you needed some help.