It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by caitlinfae
This "Conditioning" that you say causes women to reject their instinctual desires is called "Civilization"
Our sexual drives, are incompatible with Civilization, as they were formed in a VERY different environment.
Evolution, even of behaviors takes hundreds and thousands of generations to change.
Our civilization has not existed for long enough to take hold in our genetics, and thus, these instincts to "Make Beasts out of ourselves" remain.
In order to understand this completely, you would have to delve into understanding Governmental Theory, Economic Theory, Decision Theory, Hereditary Genetics, and Human Psychology.
Suffice it to say, if we did not "Pair Bond" as a species, we would not be "Civilized"
Literally.
-Edrick
Very interesting post and full of useful information. Lots of things to study there, which I will do.
It's interesting that you think we're not too far from the beasts we once were....I entirely agree with you. Civilisation is such a thin veneer. Do you think instinct and civilisation are truly mutually exclusive?
Our world now is still very competitive despite the change in syntax.
Originally posted by dragonsmusic
Originally posted by caitlinfae
reply to post by dragonsmusic
This is a very interesting subject and I have enjoyed reading about Freud's research into this. I see your point about two bisexual women being possibly the ultimate male fantasy and it's roots in the hunter archetype (which I was talking about with a close friend just two nights ago, weirdly enough), but I suspect that there is perhaps another layer of modern meaning now attached to this scenario....that of the sexually liberated woman.
Although I don't give the free love attitudes of the '60's much weight in terms of true freedom for women and their sexual expression, I do acknowledge that they were possibly a starting point for the more equal expression of sexuality we're moving towards now. Despite the fact that it's now insanely trendy for girls to be with other girls, at least at some point in their relationship history, I really believe that many women...many more women than realise it....are genuinely bisexual. Our learned patterns and past emotional traumas can block off whole areas of expression, and perhaps when we learn to be honest about who and what we like, this is the natural state for us.
Astynax's point about the benefits of a gay son to the mother's survival will also hold true of the lesbian members of a society...more healthy, non-breeding females (and their girlfriends! ) to help raise and protect the children, without the considerable risks of childbirth to worry about.
I'm glad you see that point about "two bisexual women being possibly the ultimate male fantasy and it's roots in the hunter archetype (which I was talking about with a close friend just two nights ago, weirdly enough), "
That's synched up now isn't it ?
Females strike me as being innately bisexual.
Though my one lesbian friend who I mentioned this to did not like the idea very much.
I have mentioned this to a few straight females who have not liked the idea very much either
Though in terms of the big picture it's honestly so attractive to see two pretty women hold hands as they get up from the bar or wherever and walk to the bathroom together.
Watching two attractive females make out is even more of a turnon, though I digress.
It is something primal that gets pulled up. Something ancient I think; hence my making this thread.
[edit on 29-12-2009 by dragonsmusic]
Originally posted by caitlinfae
reply to post by dragonsmusic
I'm trying to avoid turning this into a porn thread and getting myself banned, but it would seem to work in their favour too...the girls I mean...it would be an easy way to control him, if that's what they want to do, as well as maintain their own Alpha status. Would sex be enough to do this in primitive societies? It would certainly work in ours, given the right personalities involved and women ruthless enough to use it. Maybe bisexuality in females was status dependent. Maybe the power was really with the females, and Mr Hunter was put where they wanted him? Maybe they were more inclined to be with their own sex and simply used him for babies and yet more power as the mothers of his heirs?
Sorry....bad faery surfacing.....my very bad.....
[edit on 29-12-2009 by caitlinfae]
Originally posted by caitlinfae
reply to post by dragonsmusic
Eldrick has brought up some very intense points about the Elite and how they function....and I thought it was all so much simpler, which it is in a way....but now I'm going to have to go and scratch my head and think about it for a while, to see how it all fits in. Not just a silly game of "Tease him till he screams "no more.........very interesting tho.
it's this point Edrick has raised about women's desire for wealth and power driving the whole process. I'm wondering if it's still relevant.
I know we're not that far from beasts, but women can have their own wealth and power now, and it's maybe not quite the draw it once was, even quite recently. Is it possible that given a more secure lifestyle as we have now that our patterns could make a quantum leap if you like....so that sex that previously based on ensuring the survival of your gene pool and food supply is shifted in focus in a very short space of time....in some people perhaps and not all, I do understand...to something that is more purely pleasure based?
I know the pleasure survival loop existed for a reason, but I'm trying to see how long it might take for the survival half to wane, and leave us more vulnerable than ever. Maybe we have just too much lizard brain for such a jump though.
Originally posted by caitlinfae
reply to post by dragonsmusic
I think if you're going to tell me what you're thinking about, it better not be on ATS, or we will both be spanked with the Ban Slipper!
Anyway......it's this point Edrick has raised about women's desire for wealth and power driving the whole process. I'm wondering if it's still relevant. I know we're not that far from beasts, but women can have their own wealth and power now, and it's maybe not quite the draw it once was, even quite recently. Is it possible that given a more secure lifestyle as we have now that our patterns could make a quantum leap if you like....so that sex that previously based on ensuring the survival of your gene pool and food supply is shifted in focus in a very short space of time....in some people perhaps and not all, I do understand...to something that is more purely pleasure based? I know the pleasure survival loop existed for a reason, but I'm trying to see how long it might take for the survival half to wane, and leave us more vulnerable than ever. Maybe we have just too much lizard brain for such a jump though.
IT is still relevant, because the checks that society uses to prevent these instincts from tearing civilization apart, are being eroded, and systematically deconstructed.
Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by caitlinfae
it's this point Edrick has raised about women's desire for wealth and power driving the whole process. I'm wondering if it's still relevant.
It is not so much Women's desire for these things, as it is:
Women's desire for wealth and power, AND men's desire for wealth and power to acquire a woman.
It is self reinforcing.
The purpose of society is to restrain these tendencies ion both men and women.
Male territoriality and competition precludes the close knit societies that we have... so that must be repressed.
Female Hypergamy precludes the sort of cooperation that societies need to function, so that must be repressed.
IT is still relevant, because the checks that society uses to prevent these instincts from tearing civilization apart, are being eroded, and systematically deconstructed.
I know we're not that far from beasts, but women can have their own wealth and power now, and it's maybe not quite the draw it once was, even quite recently. Is it possible that given a more secure lifestyle as we have now that our patterns could make a quantum leap if you like....so that sex that previously based on ensuring the survival of your gene pool and food supply is shifted in focus in a very short space of time....in some people perhaps and not all, I do understand...to something that is more purely pleasure based?
Pleasure is natures way of making sure that we reproduce.
The sexes are fundamentally different, because that is how our form of reproduction takes place.
Men are unconstrained from the burden of nurturing the offspring, so that they may remain strong to "Get the Job done" whatever that job may be to ensure survival.
Men are better at survival.
Women are more attuned to safe environments, because our offspring are practically useless for 6-10 years.
That is a LONG time for the offspring to require attention.
This is why women are "Softer" than men... why they are more empathetic than men.
Because our children are useless.
Take the Deer for example... they are born, and can walk within minutes.
It takes a human child years to do the same.
(This is the price we pay for having a Large Brain capable of Cognition, and Rationality.)
This is what "Gender" is for.
It is a trade off of duties and responsibilities.
Men and women are not the same... they are not Equal.
They are two halves of a whole.
Neither complete without the other... in a very literal sense... because they cannot reproduce without the other gender.
Likewise, their biology, behavior, and physiology are made to be complementary, and opposite.
Not the same, or competitive.
Women do not EARN wealth, because their biological function is to USE wealth, to tend to the offspring.
This is biology.
I know the pleasure survival loop existed for a reason, but I'm trying to see how long it might take for the survival half to wane, and leave us more vulnerable than ever. Maybe we have just too much lizard brain for such a jump though.
Pleasure / Pain IS the Lizard brain.
It is your Nervous systems way of telling you HOW to survive.
Here, check this out, it should help.
-Edrick
Originally posted by caitlinfae
Great replies guys...thank you. I do understand the process here but this is something Edrick said that caught my attention and I'm wondering if he can expand on it?
IT is still relevant, because the checks that society uses to prevent these instincts from tearing civilization apart, are being eroded, and systematically deconstructed.
I'm really curious about why you think this is? Are we reverting to something less civilised?
That video is awesome
I'm going to watch all of those.
Thank you so much for all of this. I'm gonna have to process for a while.....I wanna get this right.
I see all of those things around me, although I hadn't heard of the poledancing doll. I'm kinda horrified.
I also see the reaction to it though, and am aware of how many people don't think it's ok, so maybe what we need to be worried about is whether or not this type of behaviour will reach critical mass before it's curbed.
Do you think we can be self regulating without being stifling? Is there ever a middle ground?
Can I add you as a friend btw?
Freud has his problems; which is I why I touched on that in the thread. This thread is about much more than this. Do you have a specific opinion about the thread? Does it bother you?
If Freud is correct in this postulate of his then humans are born in a state much like that which was considered natural by ancient societies; specifically the ancient Greek and Roman empires. And it would mean that everyone is bisexual.
Females strike me as being innately bisexual. Though my one lesbian friend who I mentioned this to did not like the idea very much. I have mentioned this to a few straight females who have not liked the idea very much either.
You see the problem? Your thread is offensive to women.
It's sexist.
As for the mighty-hunter-surrounded-by-fawning-females scenario you draw, it makes for a nice fantasy (especially for adolescent boys who have trouble enough attracting the attention of even one girl at a time) but there is no evidence from history or biology to support it. Whenever men die in large numbers, women do too. Usually in larger numbers.
tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com...
The “single most underappreciated fact about gender,” he said, is the ratio of our male to female ancestors. While it’s true that about half of all the people who ever lived were men, the typical male was much more likely than the typical woman to die without reproducing. Citing recent DNA research, Dr. Baumeister explained that today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. Maybe 80 percent of women reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did.
I see you're still peddling that obnoxious male-supremacist bill of goods, Edrick. What a lonely occupation yours must be! Still, I suppose you regard it as a calling, well worth the frustration and sacrifice...
Take a look at my first post in this thread, which glancingly addresses the subject of mating hierarchies and harem formation in humans and other social animals. In what respect am I wrong?
Any man who thinks women want to be concubines is severely addled.
What women want--and have always wanted--are exclusive rights to a desirable man.
It is natural for women to be attracted to high-status males, but it takes some very twisted reasoning to turn that into a propensity toward concubinage and lesbianism.
The asymmetry in ancestral sex ratios does not in any way support a thesis that women are genetically programmed to be concubines.
Rich, powerful men collected them, and women themselves had no say in the matter.
Indeed, since harems usually contain rather more than two members, the fact that the male-female disparity is only two to one suggests that the plucky young things managed to cuckold their thuggish lords and masters at every possible opportunity. Good for them.