The Manhood Trap

[Politesse]

This eugenics pseudoscience shit is irrelevant to anyone outside of the "manosphere". Which is to say, most young men.

 

[Jarhyn]

If men want to solve their problems, maybe they could start by asking "what even is a 'man' and why do I even care?!?"

You should care about [violent end]

Is that a threat mr "man"?

 

[Jarhyn]

The fact is that people care too much about what people say "being a man" means and "who is a man", because when "men" shoot people over their grievances, it's usually tied into their identity as a "man".

If you loosen that hold on them of that madness and weight of cultural expectation over being a "man" and make sure people understand that they don't have to play at life that way, people wouldn't end up shooting up the world over not always getting what they want.

This is caused by an evil done to children, of telling them that they are special and destined to be as a man with a family and king of a household.

Rather, they should be encouraged to become the wonderful person that they can be, love the people around them through thought word and deed of help and support, and feel happy when they are loved in return and never to expect thought word or deed in return, but to hope you have friends and find family good enough to give back.

That's the way out of the manhood trap.

But the trap itself is the dream to be king of things, your household or your world, as little of it as those who are kings over you can spare really, but don't look that way whatever you do.

 

[RVonse]

If men want to solve their problems, maybe they could start by asking "what even is a 'man' and why do I even care?!?"

You should care about [violent end]

Is that a threat mr "man"?

Not at all. It is just a realistic assessment of how you should expect an average male to act under conditions found today.

Violence is not what I would want at all. Its simply an explanation of our reality.

 

[RVonse]

The fact is that people care too much about what people say "being a man" means and "who is a man", because when "men" shoot people over their grievances, it's usually tied into their identity as a "man".

How do you explain chimpanzee behavior then?

They are intelligent animals but I doubt they are congregating and communicating with each other about what it means to "be a man". These are simply animals who evolved along the same trek as humans did.

 

[RVonse]

Rather, they should be encouraged to become the wonderful person that they can be, love the people around them through thought word and deed of help and support, and feel happy when they are loved in return and never to expect thought word or deed in return, but to hope you have friends and find family good enough to give back.

That's the way out of the manhood trap.

Your way is possible but not likely. You can override evolution with intelligence in the short term but in the long term men will have great difficulty changing who they really are. Eventually the lizard brain wins over cognitive intelligence.

 

[bilby]

For evolutionary reasons men don't want to support someone else's kid.

Don't blame evolution for it; The reasons for that attitude have nothing to do with evolution, and everything to do with societal rules and ideas mostly defined in religion, and designed to ensure inheritance of property, wealth, and power.

Indeed, the exact same thinking that says "I don't want to raise another man's kid" leads to "The royal bloodline is special and sacred", with the consequence that many dynasties have suffered horribly from genetic disorders resulting from inbreeding. It's an idea that reduces evolutionary fitness, and which in the long run (and evolution only works in the very long run) is doomed.

Evolution gets the attention of a lot of ignorant people who have finally realised that "the will of the Gods" is no longer an effective claim.

But evolution works at the population level. Humans have NOT evolved to be disinclined to support the children of others; They have decided to do so, as a means to wealth and power. And they made that decision very recently - far too recently for evolution to have been in any way relevant.

The attitude you ascribe to evolution has existed for fewer than two hundred generations, and developed through a time of rapid population growth (which inhibits evolutionary pressure, because during such growth, many successful reproductive strategies must exist for a species such as ours with a low rate of reproduction).

Evolution doesn't operate on our understanding of how we reproduce; We evolved in an environment in which the link between sex and babies was very tenuous indeed.

Evolution doesn't tell us how we should behave. It's not a set of rules. It's a description of our history. We are entirely at liberty to ignore it, and more than capable of doing so - and refusal to support other men's children is an example of so doing.

If you want to see what nurturing behaviours evolution is responsible for, take a look at how we behave towards children who cannot be inheritors of property and power, and are at best only distant relations of ours - because they are not human. If "For evolutionary reasons men don't want to support someone else's kid", why do men want to support puppies and kittens?

Men don't want to support other men's kids because society has told them that doing so is demeaning and unnatural. The former is artificial (and circular logic - you should be ashamed to do it, because it is shameful), and the latter an outright lie. Evolution has exactly nothing to do with it.

 

[RVonse]

For evolutionary reasons men don't want to support someone else's kid.

Don't blame evolution for it; The reasons for that attitude have nothing to do with evolution, and everything to do with societal rules and ideas mostly defined in religion, and designed to ensure inheritance of property, wealth, and power.

It has everything to do with evolution. Not just behavior but on the level of actual anatomy. The penis is physically designed to simultaneously pull out the other guy's semen while attempting to deliver his own.

 

[laughing dog]

For evolutionary reasons men don't want to support someone else's kid.

Don't blame evolution for it; The reasons for that attitude have nothing to do with evolution, and everything to do with societal rules and ideas mostly defined in religion, and designed to ensure inheritance of property, wealth, and power.

It has everything to do with evolution. Not just behavior but on the level of actual anatomy. The penis is physically designed to simultaneously pull out the other guy's semen while attempting to deliver his own.

Please explain precisely how a man’s penis pulls out semen.

 

[bilby]

Thanks to women and trans rights it is very difficult for the average male to create any sort of legacy today.

You're right. Before there were rights for women and trans people, the average male left an enduring legacy that we all remember to this day. That's why we all know the names and life stories of several million medieval men, and not just those of a handful of the most powerful and/or influential people.

Oh, wait.

Shit.

It seems that it has always been "very difficult for the average male to create any sort of legacy". Which makes putting the blame for that on recent social changes absurd.

You might as well go to the opposite extreme, and blame evolution. But that would obviously be crazy, as the contradiction inherent in blaming both recent changes and evolutionary history would totally demolish your credibility.

Oh, wait...

 

[bilby]

For evolutionary reasons men don't want to support someone else's kid.

Don't blame evolution for it; The reasons for that attitude have nothing to do with evolution, and everything to do with societal rules and ideas mostly defined in religion, and designed to ensure inheritance of property, wealth, and power.

It has everything to do with evolution. Not just behavior but on the level of actual anatomy. The penis is physically designed to simultaneously pull out the other guy's semen while attempting to deliver his own.

If you are using your penis to support your kids, then you are doing it very badly wrong.

 

[laughing dog]

A university cannot bring criminal charges. It cannot bring any accused person to trial of any sort. It cannot bring legal charges but it can and occasionally does expel or suspend students for violations of its student code of conduct. One such potential charge that can result in suspension or expulsion is cheating on an exam. This is not something which is illegal but it can result in a failing grade, suspension, loss of scholarship ( where applicable) or expulsion.

Yes, but in these cases they weren't conducting a remotely honest investigation, let alone a competent investigation. So trivially easy, just say you're afraid of retaliation and the school won't tell the accused what they supposedly did, making a defense a complete impossibility.

The issue here is you’ve constructed a fantasy. You’ve presented no evidence to support your claims. I know for a fact that at least 2 schools ALWAYS talk to the alleged perpetrator to get their narrative. And neither school is an innovator in the field.

Your posts indicate you have no clue how institutions handle these allegations.

 

[RVonse]

For evolutionary reasons men don't want to support someone else's kid.

Don't blame evolution for it; The reasons for that attitude have nothing to do with evolution, and everything to do with societal rules and ideas mostly defined in religion, and designed to ensure inheritance of property, wealth, and power.

It has everything to do with evolution. Not just behavior but on the level of actual anatomy. The penis is physically designed to simultaneously pull out the other guy's semen while attempting to deliver his own.

Please explain precisely how a man’s penis pulls out semen.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513803000163

To maximize the likelihood of paternity, human males have evolved several strategies. ...... The shape of the human penis also differs from many other primates because the glans is more exaggerated and uniquely configured (Izor, Walchuk, & Wilkins, 1981). The diameter of the posterior glans is larger than the penis shaft itself, and the coronal ridge, which rises at the interface between the glans and the shaft, is positioned perpendicular to the shaft. The human penis may displace seminal fluid from other males in the vagina by forcing it back around the glans. The effect of thrusting, according to this analysis, would be to draw foreign semen back away from the cervix. Because of its elasticity, the vagina expands around the penis during intromission creating suction that may further enhance this effect. If a female copulated with more than one male within a short period of time, this would allow subsequent males to “scoop out” semen left by others before ejaculating (Baker & Bellis, 1995).

 

[Toni]

For evolutionary reasons men don't want to support someone else's kid.

Don't blame evolution for it; The reasons for that attitude have nothing to do with evolution, and everything to do with societal rules and ideas mostly defined in religion, and designed to ensure inheritance of property, wealth, and power.

It has everything to do with evolution. Not just behavior but on the level of actual anatomy. The penis is physically designed to simultaneously pull out the other guy's semen while attempting to deliver his own.

No.

I was tempted to make some joke about this idea but no.

Yes, there actually is an evolutionary reason that males of some species kill or drive away offspring from previous male partners. When a mammalian mother loses a nursing infant, she can more likely go into estrus and so conceive offspring with the new male, ensuring that his genetics are passed on.

Women do not go into estrus.

Human penises ( and any other penis I am aware of) have no vacuum function to remove the sperm of other men/males.

I am very sorry that whatever school you attended and your parents so badly failed you when teaching you ( or, apparently not teaching you) about reproduction and human sexuality.

 

[RVonse]

Thanks to women and trans rights it is very difficult for the average male to create any sort of legacy today.

You're right. Before there were rights for women and trans people, the average male left an enduring legacy that we all remember to this day. That's why we all know the names and life stories of several million medieval men, and not just those of a handful of the most powerful and/or influential people.

Oh, wait.

Shit.

It seems that it has always been "very difficult for the average male to create any sort of legacy". Which makes putting the blame for that on recent social changes absurd.

You might as well go to the opposite extreme, and blame evolution. But that would obviously be crazy, as the contradiction inherent in blaming both recent changes and evolutionary history would totally demolish your credibility.

Oh, wait...

I never said humanity worked perfectly in the past. Though for all its faults female chastity before marriage must have worked at least a little bit. Until recent times, western human population has generally increased and we have not yet become extinct yet.....

But I'm not so sure about the future of humanity.

 

[RVonse]

I am very sorry that whatever school you attended and your parents so badly failed you when teaching you ( or, apparently not teaching you) about reproduction and human sexuality.

If you believe my parents taught me why my penis is shaped like it is you could not be more wrong.

 

[Jarhyn]

For evolutionary reasons men don't want to support someone else's kid.

Don't blame evolution for it; The reasons for that attitude have nothing to do with evolution, and everything to do with societal rules and ideas mostly defined in religion, and designed to ensure inheritance of property, wealth, and power.

Indeed, the exact same thinking that says "I don't want to raise another man's kid" leads to "The royal bloodline is special and sacred", with the consequence that many dynasties have suffered horribly from genetic disorders resulting from inbreeding. It's an idea that reduces evolutionary fitness, and which in the long run (and evolution only works in the very long run) is doomed.

Evolution gets the attention of a lot of ignorant people who have finally realised that "the will of the Gods" is no longer an effective claim.

But evolution works at the population level. Humans have NOT evolved to be disinclined to support the children of others; They have decided to do so, as a means to wealth and power. And they made that decision very recently - far too recently for evolution to have been in any way relevant.

The attitude you ascribe to evolution has existed for fewer than two hundred generations, and developed through a time of rapid population growth (which inhibits evolutionary pressure, because during such growth, many successful reproductive strategies must exist for a species such as ours with a low rate of reproduction).

Evolution doesn't operate on our understanding of how we reproduce; We evolved in an environment in which the link between sex and babies was very tenuous indeed.

Evolution doesn't tell us how we should behave. It's not a set of rules. It's a description of our history. We are entirely at liberty to ignore it, and more than capable of doing so - and refusal to support other men's children is an example of so doing.

If you want to see what nurturing behaviours evolution is responsible for, take a look at how we behave towards children who cannot be inheritors of property and power, and are at best only distant relations of ours - because they are not human. If "For evolutionary reasons men don't want to support someone else's kid", why do men want to support puppies and kittens?

Men don't want to support other men's kids because society has told them that doing so is demeaning and unnatural. The former is artificial (and circular logic - you should be ashamed to do it, because it is shameful), and the latter an outright lie. Evolution has exactly nothing to do with it.

And he's trying to argue this to the kid of a man who raised a different man's kid.

 

[Toni]

I am very sorry that whatever school you attended and your parents so badly failed you when teaching you ( or, apparently not teaching you) about reproduction and human sexuality.

If you believe my parents taught me why my penis is shaped like it is you could not be more wrong.

I believe that no one taught you a damn thing about sex or reproduction and that is a terrible shame. For you and your spouse, if you have one.

 

[bilby]

Thanks to women and trans rights it is very difficult for the average male to create any sort of legacy today.

You're right. Before there were rights for women and trans people, the average male left an enduring legacy that we all remember to this day. That's why we all know the names and life stories of several million medieval men, and not just those of a handful of the most powerful and/or influential people.

Oh, wait.

Shit.

It seems that it has always been "very difficult for the average male to create any sort of legacy". Which makes putting the blame for that on recent social changes absurd.

You might as well go to the opposite extreme, and blame evolution. But that would obviously be crazy, as the contradiction inherent in blaming both recent changes and evolutionary history would totally demolish your credibility.

Oh, wait...

I never said humanity worked perfectly in the past.

I never said you did. I responded to exactly what you did say. Which, as I pointed out, is both absurd and wrong.

Though for all its faults female chastity before marriage must have worked at least a little bit.

Worked to achieve what?

Until recent times, western human population has generally increased and we have not yet become extinct yet.....

Western?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeriepieris_circle

But I'm not so sure about the future of humanity.

You are very sure about a lot of things that ain't so at all, so I am not inclined to share your concerns.

 

[RVonse]

For evolutionary reasons men don't want to support someone else's kid.

Don't blame evolution for it; The reasons for that attitude have nothing to do with evolution, and everything to do with societal rules and ideas mostly defined in religion, and designed to ensure inheritance of property, wealth, and power.

Indeed, the exact same thinking that says "I don't want to raise another man's kid" leads to "The royal bloodline is special and sacred", with the consequence that many dynasties have suffered horribly from genetic disorders resulting from inbreeding. It's an idea that reduces evolutionary fitness, and which in the long run (and evolution only works in the very long run) is doomed.

Evolution gets the attention of a lot of ignorant people who have finally realised that "the will of the Gods" is no longer an effective claim.

But evolution works at the population level. Humans have NOT evolved to be disinclined to support the children of others; They have decided to do so, as a means to wealth and power. And they made that decision very recently - far too recently for evolution to have been in any way relevant.

The attitude you ascribe to evolution has existed for fewer than two hundred generations, and developed through a time of rapid population growth (which inhibits evolutionary pressure, because during such growth, many successful reproductive strategies must exist for a species such as ours with a low rate of reproduction).

Evolution doesn't operate on our understanding of how we reproduce; We evolved in an environment in which the link between sex and babies was very tenuous indeed.

Evolution doesn't tell us how we should behave. It's not a set of rules. It's a description of our history. We are entirely at liberty to ignore it, and more than capable of doing so - and refusal to support other men's children is an example of so doing.

If you want to see what nurturing behaviours evolution is responsible for, take a look at how we behave towards children who cannot be inheritors of property and power, and are at best only distant relations of ours - because they are not human. If "For evolutionary reasons men don't want to support someone else's kid", why do men want to support puppies and kittens?

Men don't want to support other men's kids because society has told them that doing so is demeaning and unnatural. The former is artificial (and circular logic - you should be ashamed to do it, because it is shameful), and the latter an outright lie. Evolution has exactly nothing to do with it.

And he's trying to argue this to the kid of a man who raised a different man's kid.

I'm very glad it worked out for you (and others like you). But you can also fall off a high rise building and survive (also good).

Its just not the average behavior science would expect coming out of human evolution. And the average is what should be cared about by society and politics if survival is in our future.