Castration of less evolutionary fit males

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

IvoryBlackBishop
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:55 pm

Castration of less evolutionary fit males

Post by IvoryBlackBishop »

This is a polemical post, regardless I believe it raises a valid point regarding the so-called "incel" subculture.

As far as evolutionary psychology is concerned, only men at the bottom of the evolutionary hierarchy have to potentially resort to rape, while higher status or more "fit" men (and women) have no shortages of offers.

In many "ancient" cultures, such as is documented in the Bible, men of "low status" were sometimes castrated and made into eunuch's, and forced to work in the king or queen's haram, rather than simply allowed to "exist" and fester as they are today.

Assuming the arguments regarding "incels" have any validity, I see castration as a rather pragmatic solution to the problem; if they're serially disaffected to do their lack of consensual attention from women, this would alleviate the sexual dissatisfaction, and history has shown it to be a time-tested solution for dealing with "men" of the sort, so what is not to like about it?
Last edited by IvoryBlackBishop on Thu Mar 26, 2020 6:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Walker
Posts: 7343
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Castration of less evolutionary fit males

Post by Walker »

We will need more harams to employ all the eunuchs.

Any problem with that?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2332
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Castration of less evolutionary fit males

Post by Sculptor »

IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 5:55 am In many "ancient" cultures, such as is documented in the Bible, men of "low status" were sometimes castrated and made into eunuch's, and forced to work in the king or queen's haram, rather than simply allowed to "exist" and fester as they are today.
No.
references please!
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9515
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Castration of less evolutionary fit males

Post by Immanuel Can »

Given the history of eugenics, I think your use of the term "less evolutionarily fit" is very concerning.

Henry Ford, Margaret Sanger (of Planned Parenthood) Teddy Roosevelt, Clarence Darrow (of the Scopes Trial), George Bernard Shaw, and, of course, the Pro-Slavery and Segregation Movements were devotees of this bad idea.

Here is History Channel's take on it:

Eugenics in America

In the late 19th century, Galton—whose cousin was Charles Darwin—hoped to better humankind through the propagation of the British elite. His plan never really took hold in his own country, but in America it was more widely embraced.

Eugenics made its first official appearance in American history through marriage laws. In 1896, Connecticut made it illegal for people with epilepsy or who were “feeble-minded” to marry. In 1903, the American Breeder’s Association was created to study eugenics.

John Harvey Kellogg, of Kellogg cereal fame, organized the Race Betterment Foundation in 1911 and established a “pedigree registry.” The foundation hosted national conferences on eugenics in 1914, 1915 and 1928.

As the concept of eugenics took hold, prominent citizens, scientists and socialists championed the cause and established the Eugenics Record Office. The office tracked families and their genetic traits, claiming most people considered unfit were immigrants, minorities or poor.

The Eugenics Record Office also maintained there was clear evidence that supposed negative family traits were caused by bad genes, not racism, economics or the social views of the time.

Forced Sterilizations

Eugenics in America took a dark turn in the early 20th century, led by California. From 1909 to 1979, around 20,000 sterilizations occurred in California state mental institutions under the guise of protecting society from the offspring of people with mental illness.

Many sterilizations were forced and performed on minorities. Thirty-three states would eventually allow involuntary sterilization in whomever lawmakers deemed unworthy to procreate.

In 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that forced sterilization of the handicapped does not violate the U.S. Constitution. In the words of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes, “…three generations of imbeciles are enough.” In 1942, the ruling was overturned, but not before thousands of people underwent the procedure.

In the 1930s, the governor of Puerto Rico, Menendez Ramos, implemented sterilization programs for Puerto Rican women. Ramos claimed the action was needed to battle rampant poverty and economic strife; however, it may have also been a way to prevent the so-called superior Aryan gene pool from becoming tainted with Latino blood.

According to a 1976 Government Accountability Office investigation, between 25 and 50 percent of Native Americans were sterilized between 1970 and 1976. It’s thought some sterilizations happened without consent during other surgical procedures such as an appendectomy.

In some cases, health care for living children was denied unless their mothers agreed to sterilization.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9279
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Castration of less evolutionary fit males

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

You mean 'evolutionary fit' as in 'has a lot of money'? Riiight. Because they have the best offspring.

Image

And I think you mean 'harem'.
IvoryBlackBishop
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:55 pm

Re: Castration of less evolutionary fit males

Post by IvoryBlackBishop »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 10:03 pm You mean 'evolutionary fit' as in 'has a lot of money'? Riiight. Because they have the best offspring.
No... money's an ugly little contrivance, honestly.

This simply using the "incels" warped logic against their worthless and aesthetically deprived "worldview", if you can call it one.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2332
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Castration of less evolutionary fit males

Post by Sculptor »

Castrati in history were never the result of eugenics.
Eunuchs had nothing whatever to do with eugenic, nor were "unfit males" chosen.
As for "many cultures" in ancient history castration was often reserved for special purposes - a revered and privileged post.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1764
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Castration of less evolutionary fit males

Post by Scott Mayers »

IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 5:55 am This is a polemical post, regardless I believe it raises a valid point regarding the so-called "incel" subculture (and the assorted freaks and degenerates who comprise it).

As far as evolutionary psychology is concerned, only men at the bottom of the evolutionary hierarchy have to potentially resort to rape, while higher status or more "fit" men (and women) have no shortages of offers.

In many "ancient" cultures, such as is documented in the Bible, men of "low status" were sometimes castrated and made into eunuch's, and forced to work in the king or queen's haram, rather than simply allowed to "exist" and fester as they are today.

Assuming the arguments regarding "incels" have any validity, I see castration as a rather pragmatic solution to the problem; if they're serially disaffected to do their lack of consensual attention from women, this would alleviate the sexual dissatisfaction, and history has shown it to be a time-tested solution for dealing with "men" of the sort, so what is not to like about it?
How does this 'help' other than to provide justification for those who feel subjugated by default of their admitting to being 'incels' to act out against society? While you appear on the one hand to actually BELIEVE they are correct about themselves, you are also justifying WHY they should just learn NOT to be so honest about their feelings.

As to ancient times, bias has always existed and 'eugenics' practiced even without name. So I agree with you on this factor. However, biology doesn't care about what is or is not 'superior' in one's environment but as 'mapping to' one's unique and present environment, even if that is 'inferior' with respect to all possible ideal outcomes. The logic of eugenics misses the point that this already occurs by default of those who DO get selected. Those 'incels' would not by default pass on their genes. Yet, why are these people still being born?

You cannot stop variation and in fact creates another kind of problem that many evolutionary biologists recognize should we demand perfection. The countering point against eugenics is that if the variation doesn't exist for being prunned out, should the environment suddenly change, the potential variation of those who might normally be rejected but potentially valuable to future survival of the species is threatened.

I can't be sure of my memory, but James Cameron's movie "Avatar" expressed this kind of problem. But for a realistic example, all mammals superceded the Dinosaurs for just this factor: that they (we) were 'vermin' that had a coinciding type of heart and lungs that were able to handle the disastrous environment when the astroid hit. I make the joke that it might be just as valid to promote smoking because those who evolve to handle smoke in their lungs may evolve to fit in a future world that could be relatively more polluted.

So maybe think about this a little deeper than you appear to have. Being arrogantly biased of those who have issues, such as the 'incel', should make you more compassionate rather than hostile. You can't help them to adjust, even if you believe what you do is factual, if you are hostile towards them.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9279
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Castration of less evolutionary fit males

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

'Incel'. I've never heard that term. I suppose nature just takes care of those who are so repulsive to the opposite sex that they never get to pass on their unappealing genes.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1764
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Castration of less evolutionary fit males

Post by Scott Mayers »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 2:34 am 'Incel'. I've never heard that term. I suppose nature just takes care of those who are so repulsive to the opposite sex that they never get to pass on their unappealing genes.
"Incel" is "involuntary celebate" and came to be popularized by some forum or subforums that many similar people wrote on. One (or more?) have used such forums to state some 'manifesto' prior to going out and shooting up people (women specifically?). They are now deemed illegal or blocked by some countries, like my own, Canada. The belief is that their expressions of being hurt tended to amplify their anger and helped foster the violence. Although this COULD be true, I think it is a violation of 'free speech' that I think could probably HELP should others had used these incidents to join in with their forums and try to appeal to them rather than deny them to speak. The banning of it falsely assumes that all these people complaining are terrorists. It is probably why you get such opposing hatred by those like this OP. It's understandable in light of the harm that someone can do, but we don't ban religious extremists sites from speaking freely........oh wait,...we now do! Never mind.

I think we need to be more compassionate and instead of censoring those who INTEND a deep-seated belief from being expressed. This doesn't mean that we can't place notice of sites that MAY appear to contribute to such violence. Instead, it might be just wiser to have a notice of warning with potential links to permit others the choice to look at alternatives. Also, as long as people CAN compete equally against it without themselves being censored, then this should be permitted. If, however, the site itself censors OUT those that attempt to speak in counter positions, then such sites probably deserve being censored in return. [Like a site that might permit apparent free speech but censors out those that go against their intentional extremism that might act to recruit members.]
IvoryBlackBishop
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:55 pm

Re: Castration of less evolutionary fit males

Post by IvoryBlackBishop »

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 4:58 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 2:34 am 'Incel'. I've never heard that term. I suppose nature just takes care of those who are so repulsive to the opposite sex that they never get to pass on their unappealing genes.
"Incel" is "involuntary celebate" and came to be popularized by some forum or subforums that many similar people wrote on. One (or more?) have used such forums to state some 'manifesto' prior to going out and shooting up people (women specifically?). They are now deemed illegal or blocked by some countries, like my own, Canada. The belief is that their expressions of being hurt tended to amplify their anger and helped foster the violence. Although this COULD be true, I think it is a violation of 'free speech' that I think could probably HELP should others had used these incidents to join in with their forums and try to appeal to them rather than deny them to speak. The banning of it falsely assumes that all these people complaining are terrorists. It is probably why you get such opposing hatred by those like this OP. It's understandable in light of the harm that someone can do, but we don't ban religious extremists sites from speaking freely........oh wait,...we now do! Never mind.

I think we need to be more compassionate and instead of censoring those who INTEND a deep-seated belief from being expressed. This doesn't mean that we can't place notice of sites that MAY appear to contribute to such violence. Instead, it might be just wiser to have a notice of warning with potential links to permit others the choice to look at alternatives. Also, as long as people CAN compete equally against it without themselves being censored, then this should be permitted. If, however, the site itself censors OUT those that attempt to speak in counter positions, then such sites probably deserve being censored in return. [Like a site that might permit apparent free speech but censors out those that go against their intentional extremism that might act to recruit members.]
So it's stupid then, if not outright terroristic.

How about just "growing up" instead and finding some other hobby or life pursuit, instead of framing one's "identity" in such an insipid way?
IvoryBlackBishop
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:55 pm

Re: Castration of less evolutionary fit males

Post by IvoryBlackBishop »

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 2:23 am
IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 5:55 am This is a polemical post, regardless I believe it raises a valid point regarding the so-called "incel" subculture (and the assorted freaks and degenerates who comprise it).

As far as evolutionary psychology is concerned, only men at the bottom of the evolutionary hierarchy have to potentially resort to rape, while higher status or more "fit" men (and women) have no shortages of offers.

In many "ancient" cultures, such as is documented in the Bible, men of "low status" were sometimes castrated and made into eunuch's, and forced to work in the king or queen's haram, rather than simply allowed to "exist" and fester as they are today.

Assuming the arguments regarding "incels" have any validity, I see castration as a rather pragmatic solution to the problem; if they're serially disaffected to do their lack of consensual attention from women, this would alleviate the sexual dissatisfaction, and history has shown it to be a time-tested solution for dealing with "men" of the sort, so what is not to like about it?
How does this 'help' other than to provide justification for those who feel subjugated by default of their admitting to being 'incels' to act out against society? While you appear on the one hand to actually BELIEVE they are correct about themselves, you are also justifying WHY they should just learn NOT to be so honest about their feelings.

As to ancient times, bias has always existed and 'eugenics' practiced even without name. So I agree with you on this factor. However, biology doesn't care about what is or is not 'superior' in one's environment but as 'mapping to' one's unique and present environment, even if that is 'inferior' with respect to all possible ideal outcomes. The logic of eugenics misses the point that this already occurs by default of those who DO get selected. Those 'incels' would not by default pass on their genes. Yet, why are these people still being born?

You cannot stop variation and in fact creates another kind of problem that many evolutionary biologists recognize should we demand perfection. The countering point against eugenics is that if the variation doesn't exist for being prunned out, should the environment suddenly change, the potential variation of those who might normally be rejected but potentially valuable to future survival of the species is threatened.

I can't be sure of my memory, but James Cameron's movie "Avatar" expressed this kind of problem. But for a realistic example, all mammals superceded the Dinosaurs for just this factor: that they (we) were 'vermin' that had a coinciding type of heart and lungs that were able to handle the disastrous environment when the astroid hit. I make the joke that it might be just as valid to promote smoking because those who evolve to handle smoke in their lungs may evolve to fit in a future world that could be relatively more polluted.

So maybe think about this a little deeper than you appear to have. Being arrogantly biased of those who have issues, such as the 'incel', should make you more compassionate rather than hostile. You can't help them to adjust, even if you believe what you do is factual, if you are hostile towards them.
1. There's no way to "prove" the statement, a person can claim whatever they want.

2. I personally don't believe it, I believe it's primarily a deluded or egocentric thing, usually taking some form of believing that a "celebrity" woman is entitled to show interest in you simply because you think you are "nice". The reality is that there are plenty of "unattractive" girls, as well as "unattractive" men who date or marry "unattractive" women; generally in their case it seems to be disproportionate fixation on stereotypically "attractive" women, coupled with some creepy sense of "entitlement" to sex.

3. There are people (including famous people) who, for whatever reason, don't get married or start a family, but manage to find productive or meaningful goals or life pursuits in other areas of life, rather than frame their whole identity on the basis of "disaffectedness" or a "creepy", narcissistic resentment.

(For example, the myth that only "men" have a significant sex drive isn't totally true; so likewise there are likely women who might supposedly fit into the "incel" category, yet no one talks about them, usually based on silly or nonsensical assumptions, such as that only "men enjoy sex", or something like that; difference between male and female sex drives not being relevant to this point).
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1764
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Castration of less evolutionary fit males

Post by Scott Mayers »

IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 4:04 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 4:58 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 2:34 am 'Incel'. I've never heard that term. I suppose nature just takes care of those who are so repulsive to the opposite sex that they never get to pass on their unappealing genes.
"Incel" is "involuntary celebate" and came to be popularized by some forum or subforums that many similar people wrote on. One (or more?) have used such forums to state some 'manifesto' prior to going out and shooting up people (women specifically?). They are now deemed illegal or blocked by some countries, like my own, Canada. The belief is that their expressions of being hurt tended to amplify their anger and helped foster the violence. Although this COULD be true, I think it is a violation of 'free speech' that I think could probably HELP should others had used these incidents to join in with their forums and try to appeal to them rather than deny them to speak. The banning of it falsely assumes that all these people complaining are terrorists. It is probably why you get such opposing hatred by those like this OP. It's understandable in light of the harm that someone can do, but we don't ban religious extremists sites from speaking freely........oh wait,...we now do! Never mind.

I think we need to be more compassionate and instead of censoring those who INTEND a deep-seated belief from being expressed. This doesn't mean that we can't place notice of sites that MAY appear to contribute to such violence. Instead, it might be just wiser to have a notice of warning with potential links to permit others the choice to look at alternatives. Also, as long as people CAN compete equally against it without themselves being censored, then this should be permitted. If, however, the site itself censors OUT those that attempt to speak in counter positions, then such sites probably deserve being censored in return. [Like a site that might permit apparent free speech but censors out those that go against their intentional extremism that might act to recruit members.]
So it's stupid then, if not outright terroristic.

How about just "growing up" instead and finding some other hobby or life pursuit, instead of framing one's "identity" in such an insipid way?
The point is that it is not 'stupid'. If is it, then why do most people think it 'normal' to WANT anything at all?

The problem begins with anybody declaring the world a place where anybody's dreams can come true. What's worse is that those like yourself are actually more often than not, the very same assholes who try to tell others how you EARN your own successes and that those who fail are just not trying hard enough. This very mentality is extant in those who DO believe that there must be something intrinsically WRONG with themselves with respect to others telling them that they are just NEVER right regardless of what they TRY. When you have arrogant lucky 'beautiful' people asserting they EARNED their successes and/or add how GOD favors them uniquely, you get some who actually learn that this world's 'promises' aren't actually so FAIR.

To fix this requires first NOT insulting these people as being DEFECTIVE as though by some CHOICE of their behavior assumed EQUAL among all people. The vast majority are MORE likely worse off if THEY had this reality. How often do you run into someone who could not stand being alone for more than a week after they break up with someone? If their 'pain' is justified for such a petty concern in contrast to someone who doesn't even get ANY relationship at all, then imagine what would occur if this large percentage of the population who DO get success 'normally' were denied the same? I think we'd see that in contrast, these odd lone individuals who blow up would be relatively SANE relative to most.

If society wants to stop this, they'd have to first RESPECT the reality that most people DO NOT get even the minimal of necessities let alone the 'luxuries' beyond that, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY DO or CAN DO. Then we can learn to figure out how to HONESTLY redirect people toward their capacities AS THEY ARE and not based upon irrational "will power" beliefs and dreams.

While it may be admirable that the Christmas children stories everywhere that tell people they just have to CHOOSE TO BELIEVE in order to see Santa Claus or other most desired wish, this kind of 'positivity' itself is NEGATIVE when it imposes upon everyone to interpret their failures of success as ONLY DUE TO THEMSELVES UNIQUELY. We need to first rid the world of those arrogant idiots who think it is alright for them to HAVE unilimited powers of wealth or that it is alright to flaunt one's default genetic 'beauty' as though their success is NOT DUE to how the majority PROPS them up to succeed, we will always have SOME people who WILL justly flip their lids and start shooting up people for their confusion.

To me, your own behavior is precisely the very quality of these 'terrorists' because your anger is precisely their own justification of interpreting others as relatively TERRORISTS against them! You should be trying to appeal to them by looking at their perspective with understanding and then try to CORRECT what flaw in their reasoning may exist OR to recognize where their own IS CORRECT but may need redirecting in a way that they CAN GET some happiness. Censoring them is just the first stage in justifying them to act out.

I am reminded of an example I used before. Imagine a pet dog a large family has in a household where everyone is just thinking of themselves. When the dog is a cute puppy, they feed and attend to him. But as he grows older and less 'cute', the members begin to 'ignore' them and while no one intends harm, they might starve the dog when EACH member thinks another family member would be doing so.

The dog at first begins to bark louder when he's hungry and still not fed. But given the assumption that another is feeding him, EACH family member confuses the dog as merely barking 'mad' as though selfishly wanting unnecessary attention. Then the dog begins to nibble and gets interpreted as being 'bad'. So they lock him up in some back room or yard out of sight.

Eventually, this dog WILL go apparently 'mad' and this behavior may be irreversible for it NOT getting what it perceives as 'needed' While this NEED is 'real' it is equally as 'real' for one WANTING something they deem essential to their life. I just use this extreme to get the perspective understood by the dog here.

If you believe the 'dog' IS being fed, as all the members thought so, this denies the dog's barking as meaning anything but to 'terrorize' the family. And so this appropriately gives a good analogy of how those 'Incels' may act out. To diminish them as 'bad' without and only worthy of being 'shut up', then you are as worthy of those 'dogs' to bite back harder.

Do you understand this analogy? If not, do you at least agree that we have to at least stop propping up 'dreams' as being realistically able to become true for everything and anything for one who is able to 'try hard enough'?
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1764
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Castration of less evolutionary fit males

Post by Scott Mayers »

IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 4:10 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 2:23 am
IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 5:55 am This is a polemical post, regardless I believe it raises a valid point regarding the so-called "incel" subculture (and the assorted freaks and degenerates who comprise it).

As far as evolutionary psychology is concerned, only men at the bottom of the evolutionary hierarchy have to potentially resort to rape, while higher status or more "fit" men (and women) have no shortages of offers.

In many "ancient" cultures, such as is documented in the Bible, men of "low status" were sometimes castrated and made into eunuch's, and forced to work in the king or queen's haram, rather than simply allowed to "exist" and fester as they are today.

Assuming the arguments regarding "incels" have any validity, I see castration as a rather pragmatic solution to the problem; if they're serially disaffected to do their lack of consensual attention from women, this would alleviate the sexual dissatisfaction, and history has shown it to be a time-tested solution for dealing with "men" of the sort, so what is not to like about it?
How does this 'help' other than to provide justification for those who feel subjugated by default of their admitting to being 'incels' to act out against society? While you appear on the one hand to actually BELIEVE they are correct about themselves, you are also justifying WHY they should just learn NOT to be so honest about their feelings.

As to ancient times, bias has always existed and 'eugenics' practiced even without name. So I agree with you on this factor. However, biology doesn't care about what is or is not 'superior' in one's environment but as 'mapping to' one's unique and present environment, even if that is 'inferior' with respect to all possible ideal outcomes. The logic of eugenics misses the point that this already occurs by default of those who DO get selected. Those 'incels' would not by default pass on their genes. Yet, why are these people still being born?

You cannot stop variation and in fact creates another kind of problem that many evolutionary biologists recognize should we demand perfection. The countering point against eugenics is that if the variation doesn't exist for being prunned out, should the environment suddenly change, the potential variation of those who might normally be rejected but potentially valuable to future survival of the species is threatened.

I can't be sure of my memory, but James Cameron's movie "Avatar" expressed this kind of problem. But for a realistic example, all mammals superceded the Dinosaurs for just this factor: that they (we) were 'vermin' that had a coinciding type of heart and lungs that were able to handle the disastrous environment when the astroid hit. I make the joke that it might be just as valid to promote smoking because those who evolve to handle smoke in their lungs may evolve to fit in a future world that could be relatively more polluted.

So maybe think about this a little deeper than you appear to have. Being arrogantly biased of those who have issues, such as the 'incel', should make you more compassionate rather than hostile. You can't help them to adjust, even if you believe what you do is factual, if you are hostile towards them.
1. There's no way to "prove" the statement, a person can claim whatever they want.
I don't know what this is responding to.(?)
2. I personally don't believe it, I believe it's primarily a deluded or egocentric thing, usually taking some form of believing that a "celebrity" woman is entitled to show interest in you simply because you think you are "nice". The reality is that there are plenty of "unattractive" girls, as well as "unattractive" men who date or marry "unattractive" women; generally in their case it seems to be disproportionate fixation on stereotypically "attractive" women, coupled with some creepy sense of "entitlement" to sex.
It is NO different to the AVERAGE person's capacity to behave. To say that they are being unusually 'selfish' is crap in a Capitialistic world for certain, given this is how it is defined on self-interest. As to the world as a whole, evolution ALSO FAVORS the selfish drive and defines those who GET what they want with EASE as 'valid' beings worth pursuing.

And I challenge anyone who insults these people's defects to look at themselves first to see if this is true of themselves. That is, are YOU a person who is identical to them and who cannot even get any INITIAL experience of love or affection to speak authoritatively of your own superior capacity to behave? I hate those 'Anthony Robins' types who tend to give advice as though their own REALITIES are relatively equivalent in overcoming suffering as though they are blind and don't notice that they themselves are reflecting how OTHERS have granted them their success and would do so REGARDLESS of their weaknesses!!

You have two people who are suffering identically. But one is 'cute' and the other looks like a 'monster'. What are the realistic odds that the 'monser'-looking being survive? What is the odds taht the 'cute' one survives? ...and what are the odds that the 'cute' one would then turn around and think they EARNED their survival in some sense for being 'good' in some God's eyes?
3. There are people (including famous people) who, for whatever reason, don't get married or start a family, but manage to find productive or meaningful goals or life pursuits in other areas of life, rather than frame their whole identity on the basis of "disaffectedness" or a "creepy", narcissistic resentment.

(For example, the myth that only "men" have a significant sex drive isn't totally true; so likewise there are likely women who might supposedly fit into the "incel" category, yet no one talks about them, usually based on silly or nonsensical assumptions, such as that only "men enjoy sex", or something like that; difference between male and female sex drives not being relevant to this point).
There are women like this too. But unlike men, women aren't biased for having LESS.....men are. The validity of a male, for instance, is more often about factors that are not CAPABLE of 'making' up though things they can DO. Height, for instance, is a prequalifying factor that most women DEMAND is greater than they are. In fact, the famous dating sites that used to map dates with women by men without bias to height, were FORCED to stop setting up matches of men who were shorter than these women!! This accepted behavior would be considered highly discriminatory normally.

As to your 'myth', PROVE it. Like I said above, you better be able to PROVE that you are one such person (one who cannot get laid or have a procreational life with someone you like) and still succeed. OR, if you have no problem getting SOME of what you want, undergo proof of your conjecture by demonstrating that you yourself can go without for the rest of your life. Nothing less will matter.....

Do you not think there is a reason why one of the worst punishments one can endure is isolation......even if you get all else you need to 'surive' technically?

[P.S. I believe women and men BOTH have similar drives on the same averages. But the male genetics demands them to work harder to achieve the same sexual success because this quality is what was the evolutonary reason for the differentiation at all. IF not, we would not have evolved to be of different sexes. We'd all be 'female' or able to change sex upon environmental stimulii. Women have the power to control whether relationships exist OVER THE MALE. If we resort more literally to our biological natures that got us to our evolved states, then even RAPE itself is justified. So those who flip out and kill out of whatever anger are just reflecting the contemporary continuation of stereotyped appeals that should have been left behind in our prior caves.]
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1764
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Castration of less evolutionary fit males

Post by Scott Mayers »

P.S.S. "Narscist" is a flawed term to use. The original 'god' of the Greek who fell in love with his own reflection was understood to be actually desirable but flawed by having TOO much love that got his head too big for himself. How the use of this term is perverted to demonstrate some ugly peron thinking they are somehow more 'beautiful' than they are as a 'delusion' is a distorted analogy un-reflective of these personalities. In fact, they are just the complete opposite!

I'm thinking this accusation is more likely adopted BY the actual 'narcissistic' people who are deluded into thinking their own happiness and success were earned rather than propped up by the masses of people who grant them their admiration. They are the ones who look in the mirror deluded into thinking they are more righteously 'beautiful', not those 'losers' who have SO much faith in their supposed 'beauty' they are reflecting it when they shoot up everything they see is 'beautiful' before they put the gun to their own heads. ?? :roll:
Post Reply