The Manhood Trap

[bilby]

Its just not the average behavior science would expect coming out of human evolution.

How the FUCK would you know??

You have demonstrated an utter lack of understanding of both science and evolution, just in your last few posts; And despite being challenged, in detail, on your many gross errors, you just ignore the challenges and re-state your absurd and counterfactual claim.

I suggest that you should STFU about evolution, until you have actually found out what the word means.

 

[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.

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).

Basically, a penis displaces sperm in a vagina and drags some of it out when exiting. That would be true of any mammalian penis.

That is consistent with the evolutionary drive to disseminate one’s dna. But biological evolution is different than human desires. Not wanting to raise someone else’s biological kid is a human desire, not a biologically driven imperative.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm understanding it fine, I'm just not fine with kangaroo courts.

The lawyer took what is almost certainly a contingency case in an uphill battle. That means the lawyer almost certainly saw the evidence and concluded that he was likely right. Lawyers will always try to make the numbers look bigger, but they're not likely to take a case they don't think they'll prevail in.

You’re more than fine with kangaroo courts: you accept only the carefully crafted version presented by paid attorneys.

I'd be happy to evaluate the other side's case--it's just we never see it.

 

[RVonse]

Worked to achieve what?

2.1 children per married couple. A goal of population equilibrium while maintaining peace and tranquility of society.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Thanks to women and trans rights it is very difficult for the average male to create any sort of legacy today. Despite advancements in genetic code those same woman rights making their lives better have also make it difficult or impractical for men to support only offspring that are theirs. Women have always erroneously felt slighted because they thought they were discriminated against in the workspace while forgetting that their real power has been and always will be the power to know that their kid is really their kid. Women need not worry about a workplace simply because they can have their own offspring (knowing it is their own offspring) whether or not they make a good living or not.

How in the world are women's rights and trans rights even relevant?

The only way I can see it being remotely relevant is if a man could create such a legacy by rape. And note that throughout history most family lines die out, it's not any recent change. And throughout history having lots of money can almost certainly allow you to have many children. Again, nothing is changed.

It sounds like you're falling into the standard pattern of radicalization: find something a person is unhappy about, paint a picture of why somebody is to blame.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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 not wanting to get a bullet in your head.

When women get upset they may kill themselves but when men get upset other innocent people in society start dying too.

No. What you are seeing is the effects of a continual diet of hate. Feed people enough hate and sometimes they take others with them when they decide to die.

 

[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).

Basically, a penis displaces sperm in a vagina and drags some of it out when exiting. That would be true of any mammalian penis.

That is consistent with the evolutionary drive to disseminate one’s dna. But biological evolution is different than human desires. Not wanting to raise someone else’s biological kid is a human desire, not a biologically driven imperative.

How do you explain the behavior of monkey's then?

I agree humans can use their intelligence to act against evolution programming as demonstrated by fathers of individuals like Jarhyn.

But if one observes the monkey (our closest relative), it is highly suggestive (on average) biological evolution is indeed closely tied to behavior.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

It's not what you would expect of the average male.

It's not surprising for one steeped in years of hate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

He's right about this.

But note the corollary: there is no reason for such a design unless there is a chance she recently had sex with another man. Sperm competition only happens in non-monogamous situations. Thus our nature must be non-monogamous.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Scraping, not suction. Look where the head joins the shaft--the forward facing side is a low angle, the rear-facing side is a very high angle. The low angle does not push as well as the high angle scrapes, the overall effect is any semen already present will tend to be pulled out.

 

[bilby]

Worked to achieve what?

2.1 children per married couple. A goal of population equilibrium while maintaining peace and tranquility of society.

You have got to be taking the piss.

What society in human history has ever come close to that?

Closest by far is the modern western society you are deriding.

 

[bilby]

But if one observes the monkey

Which one?

(our closest relative),

My closest relative is my mum. Dunno about yours.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

But if one observes the monkey

Which one?

(our closest relative),

My closest relative is my mum. Dunno about yours.

Adding "the monkey, our closest relative" to my "wildest misunderstandings of evolution I've seen" list.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

It didn't work nearly as well as you think it did. It's just absent major visual disparities people did not know and believed it worked.

And women aren't property.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Worked to achieve what?

2.1 children per married couple. A goal of population equilibrium while maintaining peace and tranquility of society.

2.1 is an average for a stable population. No developed country reaches it, though, because they have other things they prefer to do with their money. Now that we can choose to have or not to have kids and we don't depend on them as our only retirement program the reality is that many people do not consider the 6-figure cost (not counting time) of having a kid worth it.

 

[bilby]

Worked to achieve what?

2.1 children per married couple. A goal of population equilibrium while maintaining peace and tranquility of society.

2.1 is an average for a stable population. No developed country reaches it, though, because they have other things they prefer to do with their money. Now that we can choose to have or not to have kids and we don't depend on them as our only retirement program the reality is that many people do not consider the 6-figure cost (not counting time) of having a kid worth it.

2.1 surviving to adulthood achieves a stable population.

Survival until adulthood as an expected norm is as new as women's rights.

Go walk around an old graveyard, and see how many stones from before WWII have dates of birth within five years of the date of death.

 

[Politesse]

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.

He's right about this.

But note the corollary: there is no reason for such a design unless there is a chance she recently had sex with another man.

As is normally the case for species that experience an estrus cycle, punctuated by a mass orgy with the troop matriarch. Like most of our primate ancestors and cousins. But not, importantly, like us.

 

[Toni]

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

Scraping, not suction. Look where the head joins the shaft--the forward facing side is a low angle, the rear-facing side is a very high angle. The low angle does not push as well as the high angle scrapes, the overall effect is any semen already present will tend to be pulled out.

That definitely is not a thing. Again, Im very sorry for the paucity of good information about sex, sexuality and human reproduction that seems to have come your way.

And rather disgusted that you seem to believe that women have hoards of men lining up, literally, to have sex with them and that you seem to believe last dick in is the winner.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

I get what you're saying here bilby... but I don't think it's the 100% societal choice you've made it out to be. A huge number of mammals, including our closest relatives, pretty routinely murderfy the children of other males. That we as humans so often adopt and raise other people's children alongside our own is the societal choice.

 

[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"?

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.

So you are an average male by your estimation under conditions found today.

It's a threat.

That's simply an explanation of your post. Please re-evaluate yourself as to how you would project this clearly internal hate filled view onto others.

If you think that's what it means to be a man, you make a good argument for ending "manhood" altogether.