The two villages where mothers killed EVERY baby born a boy for ten years

Originally posted by Teeky
reply to post by Heike

 

So you're saying the world is messed up because women choosed tribal warrior men throughout time?

Maybe not the "world", but some women are messed-up by it, definitely. If you choose a domineering and aggressive partner, expect a relationship that's going to be influenced by it and expect to have children influenced by it in some way too.

It's like having your cake and eating it and then being puzzled as to why you got fat too.

Whilst there's always talk about 'trophy wives' and girlfriends, both genders play a similar game, it's just that different things are prized. Some women place privilege and value in macho men, the local hard man: the warrior. They shouldn't be surprised when that power and that aggression actually starts to appear at home too.

Originally posted by Heike
reply to post by megabyte

 

I didn't say that your post wasn't relevant to the discussion.

I SAID that a few forced marriages or rapes aren't going to significantly or statistically impact the results of women who are able to choose consistently choosing aggressive men.

Or are you suggesting that a significant percentage of women were either raped or forced into a relationship they didn't choose? That would be different from your first assertion which was something like "prove their wasn't even one rape." As I said before, ONE rape - or even a few rapes - wouldn't be statistically significant.

The point is, as simply as I can put it, that men are more aggressive than women but it's not their fault - we've collectively "selected" for that trait over hundreds of generations. It's like having a pack of hunting dogs - who've been selectively bred to hunt and kill for generations - and then being upset with them because they got out and killed your chickens. You can't blame them for doing what they were bred to do just because you don't like their choice of victim.

Men are more aggressive. Everyone knows this. All the crime statistics show it. Domestic violence statistics show it. Violent sports show it. What we need to do (and those village women needed to do) is accept it and help them find more constructive ways of dealing with it.

i agree

so what is a solution?

and did we - in pre history - deal with it the way this PNG tribe has? - is that the answer? to somehow have less testosterone in society - in men and in women?

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by megabyte

you seem to be suggesting that womens natural drives are good and mens natural drives are bad, is this correct.

i am saying that mother nature deems it more important that females needs be met and does not care if all male needs are met

when i was breeding cats i was told that if i want to leave my girl cats unmated i need to put them on hormone contraception or else the stress of not having their needs met will cause permanent damage to their reproductive organs

by contrast the male was just to be left to fend for himself without any satisfaction - it is something that does not cause permanent damage to reproductive organs

in all species no males get all the sex they wish for

Originally posted by J.Smit

Originally posted by megabyte
women HAVE to be undersexed because they are not here to fulfil mans needs - they are here to nurture the next generation of people-
that is their nature-intended purpose

God's purpose was that Woman be an equal and helper to Man. As for the idea that women need to be undersexed: it good to see there are other also that do not go clubbing (-any more). Ever been to a rave? the "*bathroom stalls*" are often crowded with girls and boys - on average, one of each per stall. And believe me, they aren't talking politics in there...

As far i could see, women have the same sex drive men have, maybe even higher.

withing a decade these girls will be marrying someone and putting their hubby on a sex ban lol

girls as young as 30 are putting their husband on a sex ban

reply to post by megabyte


Well, now that I've recovered from the shock of you agreeing with me ...

I would say the short-term solution is competitive games and sports, and things like hunting. Give them an alternative outlet for their aggressiveness.

Long term, I think we can see in the civilized (first world) countries that it is beginning to correct itself because men who have intellectual prowess and social (management) skills are tending to be more successful than aggressive, macho jock types.

Certainly I don't think the village women did the right thing. Surely there could have been other ways of handling the situation if they'd asked for help. But I think the shock and horror reactions - and the condemnation - here in this thread are a bit overboard. In human history, children have been slave labor and/or another (unwelcome) mouth to feed far more often than they've been the precious, beloved, protected-at-all-costs little things they are today.

And that's another problem we're facing although we refuse to look at it. We've sidelined "survival of the fittest" in favor of the survival (and 'right' to reproduce) of everyone, and as a species it's not taking us in a positive direction. But I'll shut up now before the shock, horror, and outrage turn on me for even suggesting such a thing.

Originally posted by Heike
reply to post by megabyte

 

Well, now that I've recovered from the shock of you agreeing with me ...

Long term, I think we can see in the civilized (first world) countries that it is beginning to correct itself because men who have intellectual prowess and social (management) skills are tending to be more successful than aggressive, macho jock types.

Certainly I don't think the village women did the right thing. Surely there could have been other ways of handling the situation if they'd asked for help. But I think the shock and horror reactions - and the condemnation - here in this thread are a bit overboard. In human history, children have been slave labor and/or another (unwelcome) mouth to feed far more often than they've been the precious, beloved, protected-at-all-costs little things they are today.

And that's another problem we're facing although we refuse to look at it. We've sidelined "survival of the fittest" in favor of the survival (and 'right' to reproduce) of everyone, and as a species it's not taking us in a positive direction. But I'll shut up now before the shock, horror, and outrage turn on me for even suggesting such a thing.

i agree with that too

and i am not for a second saying that I agree with the way the PNG women of these tribes handled their problem

simply trying to take a wider view - just like you seem to be taking a much wider view in your last few posts

Why do we care that this tribe is exterminating itself?
They are doing the world a favor
When there are no more males there will be no more babies, thus the end of baby killing and the end of that tribe being involved in war.

We could start another thread on the benefits of creating a super race.
I'd like to know why so many people are against such a thing. I won't start it because I cannot be here every day to follow up with you all.

Originally posted by megabyte
i am saying that mother nature deems it more important that females needs be met and does not care if all male needs are met

mother nature? please explain this in terms of humans, i really have no interest in the sexual habits of cats. as i have already mentioned, there is almost 0 carry over between species in terms of sexual behavior.

mother nature, known to the 21st century as evolutionary drive, deems that all species have their own sexual practices which are tailored to suit their own evolutionary niche.

it is just plain silly to apply your knowledge of the sexual behavior of cats to humans, we are not cats. in terms of human sexuality, mother nature has set humans up so that a males needs are going to be fulfilled most often.

most men could overpower most women, so in terms of nature without higher thought, it really wouldn't matter if a woman wanted to or not. in point of fact, given the nature of hidden ovulation, it is likely that female humans are naturally set up to want constant sex aswell, so in every respect you're wrong.

Originally posted by megabyte
i am saying that mother nature deems it more important that females needs be met and does not care if all male needs are met

mother nature? please explain this in terms of humans, i really have no interest in the sexual habits of cats. as i have already mentioned, there is almost 0 carry over between species in terms of sexual behavior.

mother nature, known to the 21st century as evolutionary drive, deems that all species have their own sexual practices which are tailored to suit their own evolutionary niche.

it is just plain silly to apply your knowledge of the sexual behavior of cats to humans, we are not cats. in terms of human sexuality, mother nature has set humans up so that a males needs are going to be fulfilled most often.

most men could overpower most women, so in terms of nature without higher thought, it really wouldn't matter if a woman wanted to or not. in point of fact, given the nature of hidden ovulation, it is likely that female humans are naturally set up to want constant sex aswell, so in every respect you're wrong.

Originally posted by pieman
mother nature? please explain this in terms of humans, i really have no interest in the sexual habits of cats. as i have already mentioned, there is almost 0 carry over between species in terms of sexual behavior.

mother nature, known to the 21st century as evolutionary drive, deems that all species have their own sexual practices which are tailored to suit their own evolutionary niche.

I wouldn't worry about terms like 'Mother Nature' particularly when it's used in a divisive sense with an agenda like this that tries to undermine the 'evil male hierarchy'.