Are women biologically programmed to reward cruelty, evil and domination?

No, I really do hope to find someone to spend the rest of my life with. I just doubt that person will be the last person I ever have sex with. I'll have other friends, other people I spend time with, other people I share my feelings with, other people I play games with and share my hobbies with, and yes, likely other people I will have sex with. My partner will still be my -partner-. The most important person in my life. But not the only person.

Nor would I be selfish or possessive of that person. If they find pleasure elsewhere, so long as I know I am their partner, their love, their best friend... So long as I feel special and loved, I see no issue with sharing them sexually.

No one ever belongs to anyone but themselves.

 

I suppose I do come across as judgmental some times. Although... If you've followed this thread, I have really tried to be very patient here.

 

This should probably be designated to a completely different thread but out of curiousity what religious/spiritual beliefs do you hold and ideas on an afterlife .... Its 2:33 in the morning brain is shutting down...

 

That would be a long topic to engage at this hour... Another time.

 

Short version: I am thoroughly agnostic.

 

youre only outgunned if you believe death is the end..

Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me mr rogers...

:smilielol5: ..

 

Well as far as ideology goes I am not entirely a relative post-modernist believing there is no truth whatsoever out there. I'm a materialist and I believe in an objective external world. But I believe the individual's ability to accurately understand that world is negligible and he is to a great extent dependent of the collective solipsism of the majority.
Well, what exactly is changed by evopsych? There are genetic-chemical basis-es for some of the "good" features of humanity such as love, empathy and cooperation. And there are also basis for "evil" such as greed, selfishness, cruelty, and sadism. And as you said certain ideologies and religions can inspire people to over-rule their genetic self-interest for better or worse. So IDK if evopsych as a science really changes anything.

Evopsych as an ideology generally emphasizes the more cruel aspects of humanity. So it doesn't really matter whether actions are free-willed or chemically determined. The point that depresses me is evopsych's claims about what humans are determined for. Honestly it isn't that terrible for sociology. Neoclassical economics assumes that homo economicus is entirely self-interest and at war with all fellow man. Actually Homo Darwinius is a bit kinder than the purely selfish man of the "Standard social science model". Although on the flip-side he can also chose to value the pleasure of sadism over pure monetary self-interest.

The other thing is EO Wilson's r-K selection theory. Generally parents that invest more in their kids and have more social values, have less kids, but their genes are safer since the kids they do have are more likely to survive. The long gestation period means that while not a blank slate, culture has much more influence on a child than in any other species.

I think the only area where evopsych is depressing is in the are of sexuality. Tucker Max is a huge fan. And generally it supports the idea that women are biologically programmed to reward male cruelty, brutality, and domination. But on the other hand one sociobiological theory of male homosexuality is that females are actually attracted to feminine traits and that gay males go over-board. And according to r-K selection theory dads might be a better strategy than cads in the long run.

So I don't know if the world of evopsych is more grim than that of original sin, or economics or political science etc. But its implications for male-female relations do lead to a sort of Tucker Maxism. And I am kind of despairing over that, although perhaps more than I should be

I believe that our minds were created by Darwinian evolution. But I do not know to what extent evopsych is "true". As a student of history, sociology, and anthropology, I'm perfectly willing to say human behavior is determined by a complex set of forces. Free-will can easily be outlawed both by gene and environment. Beyond that, assuming it is all biology the more important question is which specific behaviors are determined and how malleable are they? Is the main force nature or nurture? So long as the forces of nurture - mainly society and everything that comes with it- believes its nature, it might as well be nature. So ironically I believe that we are determined by biology precisely because "nurture" (the dominant ideology) says it is.

I don't believe I've discovered some secret that the rest of America is too stupid for. Rather I'm just a slow learner. America has always claimed to be non-ideological and the Americanized World claims to be post-ideological. So ideology is somewhat hidden. But most Americans are easily able to absorb it through pop culture. I'm not some Keanu Reeves hero immune to brain-washing. I was just too stupid to get it. Thats all. So it had to be explained to me at a remedial level.

Ok so now I get American ideology, which is to a large extent defended with the "truth" of evopsych. The ability for it to hold power in the world, is truth enough for me.
If Americans can learn life is about sex and power from Gossip Girl, and I need a bunch of textbooks to explain it to me. I'm no smarter for having read the textbooks. Just oblivious for having not understood and absorbed, what in retrospect was a very clear order.

So I guess my question to you is accepting all that how do YOU specifically live with it?

You believe that life is basically a struggle to obtain the pleasure of holding power over others. Ok nice in the abstract.

But what does it mean for you personally? I assume your life is not vastly different from the average American. If it is correct me. So is the answer to just work during the weekdays and party on the weekends? Work your way up the corporate ladder to hold power over men, and use a bunch of smooth lines in bars to hold power over women?

Well thats the problem with American ideology being so hidden. It lets "alpha males" say that life is all about their ability to dominate and humiliate beta males and women. But if there was some textbook on Americanism, I would get a soothing explanation that no, it is just a voluntary cooperative free-market exchange that everyone benefits from. But Americans are embarrassed by ideology and hide it. And so I'm left reading a bunch of alpha male bloggers who say no it is about cruelty and sadism. In other-words because we are so cynical it is precisely the worst parts of our system that are paraded before our eyes, and there is no need to bother to explain that actually the system is best for everybody. The way our ideology is presented to the public by its own defenders it might as well be propaganda from their worst enemies.

 

I think you could really use some of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposing_Viewpoints_series

All this social science is just theory, really. Maybe they seem right, or can make damn good analogies -- but that doesn't mean that in the real world, it does hold true.

Hell, the same holds true for many of our views in true science. Find me one proof that oil comes from dinosaur bones. You won't be able to. Find me proof that AIDS mutates from HIV naturally, and not from some certain outside conditions. You won't be able to.
These are both generally believed "truths" that many scientists have been called "quacks" for speaking out against. But they haven't been proven.

There are tons've women out there that DO reward punishment and cruelty. That foster men fighting over them, that want the bad boy.
There are tons've women that perpetuate male gender stereotypes such as them being "cheaters" or "objectifying" or "sleeping around all the time" that do those same exact things -- that are in many cases, cruelties.

That doesn't mean that there aren't women out there that want a dream boyfriend, that will treat them right, try not to ever hurt them, that they can trust and build a companionship and a life with.

Those people don't get the press though. They aren't 'dramatic' enough.

I mean, look at broken heart syndrome. There are people dying to be with their loved ones again (or at least, not to be without them). This isn't necessarily a conscious wish - it's the bodies' response to such a strong bond, such a strong love, that they couldn't live without it.

 

I don't think that anger is ever justified. We are not angry for the reasons we think. Anger is the expression of an unresolved fight or flight response.

 

You already have that person, and you will be the last person you have sex with.

 

How do I drop out of the rat race and survive? Hippie Communes, Monasteries, Peace Corps? Teaching english to foreigners? Immigrating?

 

By creating your own industry. Are you enlightened enough to be up to it?
So far you have shown yourself to be rather whiny.

 

^ everyone must find their own path.

People like you and I (if you don't mind the comparison), the intellectual "lost" type, that never had anyone give us proper footing or direction - but have nurtured our own minds, and grown against the grain from the mainstream, probably have the most trouble at this.

Nonetheless, we may find our ways to fight the demon from the inside, or we may find a passion that leads us outside of the normal society with which we are dissociated.

If any of those things interest you, why not try it?

 

The Monastery life appeals to me the most. I guess the most stable institution to be a monk in is the Catholic church. I could look into Episcopalian and Buddhist versions. I wish cults were still around. To a large extent the RCC has been on the wrong side of history and I'm more of a Protestant in temperament. But I'm willing to accept it. I guess it is the natural end to asceticism. And yet I've always followed a worldly public asceticism of the Puritans as described by Max Weber. I didn't believe in complete withdrawal. But the world has gone to hell... so maybe. Well I know you have to convert and then wait a few years.

But I guess I kind of feel like there is no point. To withdraw from life like that is a living suicide. It is to admit that life itself is evil. Religious folks can't commit suicide because their God will punish them, so they pull out of this "good" world for as long as possible and wait out the clock for death. As an atheist that zombie living death seems pointless. No Christian could be a Monk, God saw the world and it was good. The monastery seems more for Gnostics or Buddhists.

IDK maybe I've got so caught up with the Big Picture that I'm totally blind to the happiness people find in friends, romance, family and the little achievements. IT all seems so trivial when your lens zooms out too much. Even in my happier times, my joy came from dreams of the Big Future.

I don't want to be judgmental. Lets just say I can't coexist with the world of raves, night-clubs, springbreak, MTV, Girls Gone Wild, Frats, Mardi Gras etc. I'm not going to say theres anything wrong with it just that I need to be FAR away with it.

If I lived in a small town that matched my values, and the rest of the world remained debauched, but was far from me. I could live with that. IT just seems like theres no escape. You need capital even to be a hermit. But in a larger sense, what good is it to be a monk or a hermit? I believe in society and civilization. I just hate this one. The idea of just surviving for the sake of surviving in the woods is little better than in an office.

Not sure if there is a way out. If I had to list my minimum demands. I guess I could settle for living anywhere where sexuality was very suppressed. But it seems like thats no where in America or the world.

 

I only got this far before I could no longer breathe. I will read on but you must avoid priesthood at all costs.

 

Further radname, to become institutionalized is not creating your own industry.

 

Hey I could be a bold entrepreneur if I had the capital to be bold with.

I have considered checking in to a mental asylum. Not to be fixed. But to live out my days under the care of totalitarian platonic guardians.

 

The real waste of suicide is that it is not effective.

 

A bold entrepreneur starts with no physical capital at all. Boldness is an effect of essential being or intent.

You are already in such a condition. It is a condition of slavery.

 

Christian is about mastery of the self, not to join some organization. This process could well involve living in isolation for a time.