|
Take the discussions of the merits of religion to PMs - KwarK |
On January 25 2012 21:57 vetinari wrote:The big religions don't hate the sex drive. They fear the sex drive. And for good reason:
Fear manifests itself in the same fashion as hate for those in power. Kill that which you hate or fear.
the optimal mating strategy for a male is to provide resources to his legitimate offspring, and to cuckold as many men as possible. This will give him as many offspring as possible and good provisioning for them too, maximise his chances of having living descendents now.
the optimal mating strategy for the average female is to obtain resources from one man, while obtaining higher quality genes from a variety of different males, since this arrangement will maximise the probability of her children surviving and reproducing.
Religion was telling people how sinful they were long before such biological concepts had ever been thought of.
If you think that allowing the human sex drive free reign is compatible with civilisaton . . . I have some pyramids to sell you.
It's not something that needs to be controlled to any degree.
You can have a monogamous relationship or fuck every man/women that comes into your sight. The Netherlands is still standing.
|
On January 25 2012 21:57 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 21:18 zalz wrote:On January 25 2012 20:59 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
Someone has some account on female circumcision?
Why is it done in muslim countries? Wikipedia has the following: FGM is considered by its practitioners to be an essential part of raising a girl properly—girls are regarded as having been cleansed by the removal of "male" body parts. It ensures pre-marital virginity and inhibits extra-marital sex, because it reduces women's libido. Women fear the pain of re-opening the vagina, and are afraid of being discovered if it is opened illicitly. You will find a host of different religious reasons or cultural reasons why people do it. But the truth is that it's always done for the same practical reason. The big two religions hate the human sex drive. There is nothing more depraved then the act of sex. If it could they would eradicate it entirely. What luck for them that they can eradicate the need for sex in the female. All it takes is a rusty razor. The big religions don't hate the sex drive. They fear the sex drive. And for good reason: the optimal mating strategy for a male is to provide resources to his legitimate offspring, and to cuckold as many men as possible. This will give him as many offspring as possible and good provisioning for them too, maximise his chances of having living descendents now. the optimal mating strategy for the average female is to obtain resources from one man, while obtaining higher quality genes from a variety of different males, since this arrangement will maximise the probability of her children surviving and reproducing. If you think that allowing the human sex drive free reign is compatible with civilisaton . . . I have some pyramids to sell you.
Regardless of your opinions on sex or biology, you can't seriously think that mutilating half the population when they have their first period is an acceptable solution. That's fucking cruel.
|
On January 25 2012 22:07 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +the optimal mating strategy for a male is to provide resources to his legitimate offspring, and to cuckold as many men as possible. This will give him as many offspring as possible and good provisioning for them too, maximise his chances of having living descendents now.
the optimal mating strategy for the average female is to obtain resources from one man, while obtaining higher quality genes from a variety of different males, since this arrangement will maximise the probability of her children surviving and reproducing. Religion was telling people how sinful they were long before such biological concepts had ever been thought of.
Because evolution, which applies to memes as much as it does to genes, had discovered that giving human instincts free reign is bad for the host society. What is optimal for the individual, is not necessarily optimal for society. The point of culture, religion, laws is to align the incentives so that what is good for the individual is good for society.
Show nested quote +If you think that allowing the human sex drive free reign is compatible with civilisaton . . . I have some pyramids to sell you. It's not something that needs to be controlled to any degree. You can have a monogamous relationship or fuck every man/women that comes into your sight. The Netherlands is still standing.
For now.
Then again, the entire world is still standing, so we can continue to emit CO2 at an exponentially increasing rate, right?
|
On January 25 2012 21:57 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 21:18 zalz wrote:On January 25 2012 20:59 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
Someone has some account on female circumcision?
Why is it done in muslim countries? Wikipedia has the following: FGM is considered by its practitioners to be an essential part of raising a girl properly—girls are regarded as having been cleansed by the removal of "male" body parts. It ensures pre-marital virginity and inhibits extra-marital sex, because it reduces women's libido. Women fear the pain of re-opening the vagina, and are afraid of being discovered if it is opened illicitly. You will find a host of different religious reasons or cultural reasons why people do it. But the truth is that it's always done for the same practical reason. The big two religions hate the human sex drive. There is nothing more depraved then the act of sex. If it could they would eradicate it entirely. What luck for them that they can eradicate the need for sex in the female. All it takes is a rusty razor. The big religions don't hate the sex drive. They fear the sex drive. And for good reason: the optimal mating strategy for a male is to provide resources to his legitimate offspring, and to cuckold as many men as possible. This will give him as many offspring as possible and good provisioning for them too, maximise his chances of having living descendents now. the optimal mating strategy for the average female is to obtain resources from one man, while obtaining higher quality genes from a variety of different males, since this arrangement will maximise the probability of her children surviving and reproducing. If you think that allowing the human sex drive free reign is compatible with civilisaton . . . I have some pyramids to sell you.
Oh god here we go again vet. Spouting the pseudoscientific bullshit. Though I see you've altered your view from women monogamous man polygamous. No these are not optimal strategies. Optimal for women would be finding a single high quality man while trying to goad the resources of as many men as possible. Of course almost no women do this and no people aim for "optimal" mating strategies, even in nature.
Sorry, but men and women aren't actually that different sexually. Everyone pretty much hunts for high fitness and higher quality of life for children.
|
On January 25 2012 18:11 bdair2002 wrote:I am a Muslim and I can assure you woman's has all the rights and there is nothing against woman in Islam, Westerns is trying to fight Islam in every way "and it is clear for everyone" so they are raising such topics. Islam, as every other religion has rules, and you have to execute and commit to these rules, some of these rules concerning woman's and the relation between Man and Woman, for example: 1. Nude "we call it Awrah" where is defines the areas in the body for both Men and Woman which is not allowed for other people to see "man to man, man to woman, woman to man, woman to woman" a. For man, the Nude "Awrah" is between the stomach to knees, the area between stomach to knees must be hide by cloth, you cannot go out in the street showing your knees or above, or your stomach and under, in your home, you are free to do whatever you want, but in front of people you are not. b. For woman, her Nude "Awrah" includes her entire body but the faces and hands, a woman cannot show her parts to foreign people (foreign are the men which she can marry). Jewish has the same rules and Christians even have the same rules, you can read more about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzniutand for Christians : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NunIt is just the west trying to capitalize these rules (which were found to help humanity) against Islam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Islam
I understand what you are trying to say, but I think you need to realize that not all 'westerners' are Islam haters. Yes, there are a lot of closed minded people, but I think there are a lot of those wherever you go. I think there are a lot of us that are quite tolerant.
Also, you're link for these 'rules' in regards to Christianity, takes you to a wiki page about nuns, which are predominantly Catholic. There's a huge difference between Catholicism and Christianity. There are no such specific 'rules' for New-Testament Christians, seeing as all of these rules were written in the Old Testament Torah-- which would be the 'rules' that you classified for Judaism.
But yes, all three religions, (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity), put value on modesty between men and women.
|
This is absolutely wrong to interfere with how muslims live. Not only it's none of our business, but also it's hypocritical.
Why do you think you're right and they are wrong? Maybe their god is the one that's true and he wants what they do, not what YOU think gawd wants.
Seriously religious people are so stupid... on both sides
|
On January 25 2012 18:11 bdair2002 wrote:I am a Muslim and I can assure you woman's has all the rights and there is nothing against woman in Islam, Westerns is trying to fight Islam in every way "and it is clear for everyone" so they are raising such topics. Islam, as every other religion has rules, and you have to execute and commit to these rules, some of these rules concerning woman's and the relation between Man and Woman, for example: 1. Nude "we call it Awrah" where is defines the areas in the body for both Men and Woman which is not allowed for other people to see "man to man, man to woman, woman to man, woman to woman" a. For man, the Nude "Awrah" is between the stomach to knees, the area between stomach to knees must be hide by cloth, you cannot go out in the street showing your knees or above, or your stomach and under, in your home, you are free to do whatever you want, but in front of people you are not. b. For woman, her Nude "Awrah" includes her entire body but the faces and hands, a woman cannot show her parts to foreign people (foreign are the men which she can marry). Jewish has the same rules and Christians even have the same rules, you can read more about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzniutand for Christians : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NunIt is just the west trying to capitalize these rules (which were found to help humanity) against Islam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Islam
A single look at an islamic family in the park shows me that their women are suppressed. The boys laugh and play in comfortable clothing and give an impression of vitality, the girls sit on the bench with immovable tense faces, in dark clothing that covers everything besides their face and hands.
Yes there are similarities between Islam, Christianity and Judaism because these religions have the same origins. However in the west we are moving away from these despicable practices while Islam has had a movement towards more strictness in many areas.
And no I don't hate Islam, I just dislike when people are suppressed.
|
On January 25 2012 22:15 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 21:57 vetinari wrote:On January 25 2012 21:18 zalz wrote:On January 25 2012 20:59 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
Someone has some account on female circumcision?
Why is it done in muslim countries? Wikipedia has the following: FGM is considered by its practitioners to be an essential part of raising a girl properly—girls are regarded as having been cleansed by the removal of "male" body parts. It ensures pre-marital virginity and inhibits extra-marital sex, because it reduces women's libido. Women fear the pain of re-opening the vagina, and are afraid of being discovered if it is opened illicitly. You will find a host of different religious reasons or cultural reasons why people do it. But the truth is that it's always done for the same practical reason. The big two religions hate the human sex drive. There is nothing more depraved then the act of sex. If it could they would eradicate it entirely. What luck for them that they can eradicate the need for sex in the female. All it takes is a rusty razor. The big religions don't hate the sex drive. They fear the sex drive. And for good reason: the optimal mating strategy for a male is to provide resources to his legitimate offspring, and to cuckold as many men as possible. This will give him as many offspring as possible and good provisioning for them too, maximise his chances of having living descendents now. the optimal mating strategy for the average female is to obtain resources from one man, while obtaining higher quality genes from a variety of different males, since this arrangement will maximise the probability of her children surviving and reproducing. If you think that allowing the human sex drive free reign is compatible with civilisaton . . . I have some pyramids to sell you. Regardless of your opinions on sex or biology, you can't seriously think that mutilating half the population when they have their first period is an acceptable solution. That's fucking cruel.
Of course I don't. I object to unnecessary cruelty, and female circumcision is nothing if not unnecessary. There are far less cruel methods of achieving the desired level of sexual repression.
By the way, I object to the word "opinion" there. those are the optimal mating strategies for an individual man or woman. Well, I suppose the optimal mating strategy for the male would include rape whenever feasible too.
Never forget that the sex drive exists for one reason, and one reason only: to pass on your genes. The optimal strategy for reproduction, that your body WILL drive you to do, if it decides that the risks are worth it, is regarded by us as immoral, because it is not optimal for society.
Essentially, thats what a moral act is: one that is good for society. Of the top of my head, I cannot think of any act that is detrimental to society and regarded as the morally right thing to do.
On January 25 2012 22:46 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 21:57 vetinari wrote:On January 25 2012 21:18 zalz wrote:On January 25 2012 20:59 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
Someone has some account on female circumcision?
Why is it done in muslim countries? Wikipedia has the following: FGM is considered by its practitioners to be an essential part of raising a girl properly—girls are regarded as having been cleansed by the removal of "male" body parts. It ensures pre-marital virginity and inhibits extra-marital sex, because it reduces women's libido. Women fear the pain of re-opening the vagina, and are afraid of being discovered if it is opened illicitly. You will find a host of different religious reasons or cultural reasons why people do it. But the truth is that it's always done for the same practical reason. The big two religions hate the human sex drive. There is nothing more depraved then the act of sex. If it could they would eradicate it entirely. What luck for them that they can eradicate the need for sex in the female. All it takes is a rusty razor. The big religions don't hate the sex drive. They fear the sex drive. And for good reason: the optimal mating strategy for a male is to provide resources to his legitimate offspring, and to cuckold as many men as possible. This will give him as many offspring as possible and good provisioning for them too, maximise his chances of having living descendents now. the optimal mating strategy for the average female is to obtain resources from one man, while obtaining higher quality genes from a variety of different males, since this arrangement will maximise the probability of her children surviving and reproducing. If you think that allowing the human sex drive free reign is compatible with civilisaton . . . I have some pyramids to sell you. Oh god here we go again vet. Spouting the of as many men as possible. Of course almost no women do this and no people aim for "optimal" mating strategies, evpseudoscientific bullshit. Though I see you've altered your view from women monogamous man polygamous. No these are not optimal strategies. Optimal for women would be finding a single high quality man while trying to goad the resourcesen in nature. Sorry, but men and women aren't actually that different sexually. Everyone pretty much hunts for high fitness and higher quality of life for children.
No, thats not the optimal strategy. Genetic diversity trumps a minor increase in available resources.
Everyone hunts for the highest attainable reproductive success*. The methods of achieving those are not the same for men and women. They cannot be the same, because men have penises and women vaginas, to put it crassly. In fact, not only are they not the same, but they are in competition.
*Well, in the absence of suicidal cultural conditioning. Happily, susceptibility to such cultural conditioning is quickly weeded out of the gene pool (though not entirely, since after a couple generations, the culture that promoted sterility is usually replaced by one that promotes fertililty + rape, etc.)
|
On January 25 2012 22:24 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 22:07 zalz wrote:the optimal mating strategy for a male is to provide resources to his legitimate offspring, and to cuckold as many men as possible. This will give him as many offspring as possible and good provisioning for them too, maximise his chances of having living descendents now.
the optimal mating strategy for the average female is to obtain resources from one man, while obtaining higher quality genes from a variety of different males, since this arrangement will maximise the probability of her children surviving and reproducing. Religion was telling people how sinful they were long before such biological concepts had ever been thought of. Because evolution, which applies to memes as much as it does to genes, had discovered that giving human instincts free reign is bad for the host society. What is optimal for the individual, is not necessarily optimal for society. The point of culture, religion, laws is to align the incentives so that what is good for the individual is good for society.
What is good for the spread of religion is not necessarily good for society. That's like saying flu is good for the host ...
|
Are we still in such a state as a species that we need to be propagating like mad? Are we in such peril of imminent extinction that we still need to base our cultural norms off of what best produces the most children? Sure, women are the limiting factor in reproduction. That doesn't mean we should repress them, make them feel ashamed of their sexuality, or physically mutilate their bodies so that they can't ever enjoy sex. Such repression and control is never justified regardless of your, (and I'll say it again) OPINIONS of human sexuality and primitive reproductive strategies.
It's 2012. We're not dying out anytime soon due to lack of children. Sex for fun isn't a terrible thing that destroys society. Women not feeling inherently ashamed of their bodies and sexuality isn't going to cause the world to explode anytime soon.
|
Vetenari, Genetic diversity isn't having sex with multiple men you weirdo. You're mixing up your biological terms. That would only make sense if parents expected incest from their children or something weird like that.
Actually penises and vaginas don't really affect anything. Why would your gentalia affect reproductive strategy? No the only thing that would affect it is **pregnancy**. Theres competition between vaginas not between penises and vaginas. I have no idea what you meant by that.
I'm sorry but you have yet to show any understanding of human sexuality.
|
On January 25 2012 23:24 DoubleReed wrote:
Vetenari, Genetic diversity isn't having sex with multiple men you weirdo. You're mixing up your biological terms. That would only make sense if parents expected incest from their children or something weird like that.
Actually penises and vaginas don't really affect anything. Why would your gentalia affect reproductive strategy? No the only thing that would affect it is **pregnancy**. Theres competition between vaginas not between penises and vaginas. I have no idea what you meant by that.
I'm sorry but you have yet to show any understanding of human sexuality.
Simple example of the benefits of genetic diversity:
Woman has 5 children, 4 with her husband, and 1 by another man. The black death comes. Neither she nor her husband are carriers of the genes for resistance to the black death. She dies, her husband dies, her 4 children by her husband die. But the other man was a carrier of the gene for resistance to the plague. Her 5th child survives. Her genetic lineage has a chance of continuing. Not very good perhaps . . . but greater than if she had been faithful.
Competition between penis and vagina example:
average woman can only obtain the resources of the average man, because she is of average fitness. If she has children only by him, her children will be of average fitness.
However, if she has sex with a man of high fitness (e.g. a mighty warrior, cassanova, etc), her children will be of above average fitness.
Hence, by cuckolding her resource provider, she maximises her reproductive success. However, the average man married to this woman loses. He provides resources but has a greatly diminished share of her reproductive potential.
Thus, competition between penis and vagina. If she maximises her reproductive success, he loses.
Is this clear enough? I know you want to believe that men and women are the same, hell, I did once too. But wishing will not make it so.
|
On January 25 2012 23:21 Haemonculus wrote:
Are we still in such a state as a species that we need to be propagating like mad? Are we in such peril of imminent extinction that we still need to base our cultural norms off of what best produces the most children? Sure, women are the limiting factor in reproduction. That doesn't mean we should repress them, make them feel ashamed of their sexuality, or physically mutilate their bodies so that they can't ever enjoy sex. Such repression and control is never justified regardless of your, (and I'll say it again) OPINIONS of human sexuality and primitive reproductive strategies.
It's 2012. We're not dying out anytime soon due to lack of children. Sex for fun isn't a terrible thing that destroys society. Women not feeling inherently ashamed of their bodies and sexuality isn't going to cause the world to explode anytime soon.
Its not just about maximising reproduction, though. Its also about motivating people to produce well in excess of what they consume, so that the society can build up capital and hence outcompete other societies. And that is a huge reason for sexual repression: because the sex drive is too powerful a motivator to leave unharnessed.
Think about it. Which society will be more successful in the long run:
The one in which to get laid, you need to be sexy?
Or the one in which to get laid, you need to be a productive citizen?
Anyway, good night. And happy australia day to any other aussies out there.
|
That's not competition, that's deceit and exploitation. Sharing resources willingly cannot ever be competition in any usual sense.
A woman can't have children with multiple partners at the same time due to pregnancy. That is the main restraint on female reproductive strategy. The strategy you just described is a **male** strategy if anything. Actually that shows my point pretty well that our strategies are for the most part really similar.
But no that's not the main point. The fact is that society can function perfectly well without the government getting involved with the bedroom. Peoples rights should not be based on their genitals.
|
I don't understand what you're getting at. I'm not arguing that men and women are the same, but your thought process doesn't seem to have any goal whatsoever. You defend repressing sexuality, then go on to explain how sleeping around is the most genetically viable strategy, all while claiming that society depends on it.
edit: You're also bringing up examples and speaking about societies from hundreds of years ago. Tell me what justifies repression human sexuality in the modern world?
|
On January 26 2012 00:03 DoubleReed wrote:
That's not competition, that's deceit and exploitation. Sharing resources willingly cannot ever be competition in any usual sense.
A woman can't have children with multiple partners at the same time due to pregnancy. That is the main restraint on female reproductive strategy. The strategy you just described is a **male** strategy if anything. Actually that shows my point pretty well that our strategies are for the most part really similar.
But no that's not the main point. The fact is that society can function perfectly well without the government getting involved with the bedroom. Peoples rights should not be based on their genitals.
Of course its competition. Its a nasty form of competition, but its still competition. Its a no holds barred competition over reproductive success. In other words: Life.
I think i get your point now. You are saying that the male and female strategies are similiar because the point is to maximise quantity, quality and genetic diversity of descendents.
But you are conflating the goal with with the strategy. You and I could have the same goal: making a million dollars. But your strategy could be to work in academia, while mine could be to compete in MMA. Same goal, greatly different strategies.
By the way, I hate it when people say "get the government out of the bedroom". Its a meaningless statement, because just about every government policy influences what goes on in the bedroom, if you look carefully enough. Think about it.
|
I don't think it's fair to blame religion for horrifying, reactionary religious governments. That would be like blaming atheism for horrifying, atheist governments (NK, China, USSR, etc). Certainly bad people manipulate religion to get off on their disgusting power trips, but using religion as a tool to manipulate minds that have already been down-trodden is not the basis of religion.
Religion is the answer to question we have not, yet, been able to answer. Before the advent of space exploration, religion explained the sun, the moon, and the stars. Before the great strides in biology and chemistry, religion answered what we are, and how we work. There are still questions the answers to which we do not know. At this point, there is no factual basis for any theory of the beginning of the universe-- certainly there are reasonable theories, but there is no knowledge.
Faith is belief without knowledge, and I agree that faith can be dangerous. But with regards to the way the universe works, I have as much proof that God created the Universe as anyone does that it was a random act of nothingness: absolutely no proof at all. Everything we know, from Newton's laws of conservation to Einstein's relativity theory is based on assumptions-- sometimes irrational assumptions. The set of assumptions we use today are different than those used by ancient philosophers. We decide what is "right" or "factual" based on the set of assumptions which explain the most while assuming the least-- we don't use necessarily the "correct" assumptions, but rather the most useful ones.
A higher power didn't ask, nor did it give authority, nor would a benevolent higher power accept the actions that these exploitative Imams are hoping to take. There is cruelty in man, not religion.
|
He's responding to me Haem. He's suggesting our sexual strategies have to be repressed in order for a sensible society to work. And perhaps as men and women are different means they should be treated differently. It's bullshit, of course. Differences between male and female mating strategies are minor at best, and everything he's claimed is incorrect and some even inverted.
The fact is that all evidence shows that men and women are far more similar than most people believe. There is zero justification for any state to grant rights based on sex.
No vetinari, that's not competition. Women compete with each other on reproductive success not against men. You are making less than no sense.
|
On January 26 2012 00:11 Haemonculus wrote:
I don't understand what you're getting at. I'm not arguing that men and women are the same, but your thought process doesn't seem to have any goal whatsoever. You defend repressing sexuality, then go on to explain how sleeping around is the most genetically viable strategy, all while claiming that society depends on it.
edit: You're also bringing up examples and speaking about societies from hundreds of years ago. Tell me what justifies repression human sexuality in the modern world?
What I have been trying to say, is that sleeping around is the most genetically viable strategy. In the absence of effective sexual repression, people will sleep around, because that is what we are programmed to do.
Sleeping around is what is best for the individual.
However, what is best for society is to harness the power of the sex drive to get people to work for the benefit of society. Sleeping around, however, undermines the rationing of sex and thus its motivating effect.
Thus, some form of sexual repression is beneficial for society.
In essence, we are spending our accumulated social capital, in order to experiment with secularism, feminism, socialism, capitalism, etc. Time will tell whether these investments will pay off, or bankrupt us. If they pay off, all well and good. If not . . . then oh shit.
The example from hundreds of years ago was explaining the benefit of genetic diversity: it facilitates adaptation to changes in environment. The example had nothing to do with sexual repression.
|
On January 26 2012 00:27 DoubleReed wrote:
He's responding to me Haem. He's suggesting our sexual strategies have to be repressed in order for a sensible society to work. And perhaps as men and women are different means they should be treated differently. It's bullshit, of course. Differences between male and female mating strategies are minor at best, and everything he's claimed is incorrect and some even inverted.
The fact is that all evidence shows that men and women are far more similar than most people believe. There is zero justification for any state to grant rights based on sex.
No vetinari, that's not competition. Women compete with each other on reproductive success not against men. You are making less than no sense.
DoubleReed, in your words:
1. what is the optimal mating strategy for a man?
2. what is the optimal mating strategy for a woman?
3. what is the impact of the male strategy succeeding on the women involved?
4. what is the impact of the female strategy succeeding on the men involved?
Think about it. Remember, the optimal mating strategy will maximise the quantity, quality and genetic diversity of the individual's descendents.
And good night.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
