Joan of Arc was not a man.

Greed starts war.

Originally posted by MrUncreated
War is caused by greed, jealousy, and ego, not sex drive. What a stupid article.

Helen of Troy...?



If she was as beautiful as they say I could see it as "Greed, Ego and or Jealousy" but wouldn't their Sex Drive have played a part in all of that as well?

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by MrUncreated
War is caused by greed, jealousy, and ego, not sex drive. What a stupid article.

Helen of Troy...?



If she was as beautiful as they say I could see it as "Greed, Ego and or Jealousy" but wouldn't their Sex Drive have played a part in all of that as well?

I doubt it. If you've got an itch to scratch, then you can always do so. I don't think that was so much about sex as it was about possessing something. Or someone.

Well, war is caused by man, but caused by his sex drive?
Lately war has been for power, greed, and dare i ssy it, oil.
Somewhere deep inside, is it all because of a mans sex drive,
i dont think so.

Thought it would make a good thread though

I just realised i put this in middle east issues Can the
mods put this thread in the right forum

Most men I know get along, even with outsiders. Just grab a beer and you'll find common ground eventually. I think the men starting wars have been manipulated into it by women. Get married and you'll find out real quick what she thinks about your friends. Now translate that to nations.

---

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

---

Tribal protectiveness and sexual partner preference certainly has some application in cultural conflict.

This in only in cases of invasive force instead of natural cultural interchange. Otherwise men are well capable of "fellowship" across tribal groups.

While women can act in conjunction, this usually if there is some reason to do so.

Women also will show protective preference towards their preferred partners. I would also suspect that women who are less interested in subordinating themselves in a female consensus make better mates for certain types of men, giving them a different type of advantage.

This idea that women have a different instinct to work together likely comes from the numerous times when women have been left as the only living people left from a tribe. All the males over a certain age dead in a conflict. So the women capable of working together have had an advantage in those times.

This idea of women supporting women is being promoted right now, and I think that is great. Much better than the "shoes-and-catfights" stuff. However, it is being attached to this idea that men-are-naturally-bad.

There is nothing inherently wrong with some men having this instinct.

The "blame" here is backwards. In reality, if societies are acting in a manner that does not honour humans being humans, then the problem is not the humans.

There is nothing wrong with men having a protective instinct in the face of aggression or invasion at a family or "tribe" level.

Clearly men are also capable of immense feats of fellowship to get things done.

The difference is invasion/aggression.

Women may get on, but usually when they do it is for a goal. Something women in Western societies are lacking currently. Some reason to do things together, for family, church, community, society. Therefore no reason to cooperate.

Consensus amoung women is not necessarily the same thing as "peace." Individual differences are not honoured amoung women in consensus. Which amoung men differences are, but are set aside sometimes for goal achievement. Amoung women this consensus making takes a different role, where being out of consensus is an attack on the group.

The journalists are hacking your brain by making this a men bad / women good thing. All these traits are both good and bad, depending on how you are using them.