The Manhood Trap

[GenesisNemesis]

The persecution complex of the average male is out in full force today apparently.

 

[pood]

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.

Monkeys are not our closest relatives.

 

[pood]

That we as humans so often adopt and raise other people's children alongside our own is the societal choice.

Is it? I think 4.5 million adopted children in the U.S., with more than 100,000 adopted each year, is strong evidence against RVonse’s thesis.

 

[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.

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.

Monkeys are not our closest relatives.

Well, not mine nor yours, but maybe RVonse is telling us something more recent involving his family tree?

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Personally, I'm rather fond of our species, and would rather not eliminate all the males. You guys have your uses, after all.

 

[Emily Lake]

That we as humans so often adopt and raise other people's children alongside our own is the societal choice.

Is it? I think 4.5 million adopted children in the U.S., with more than 100,000 adopted each year, is strong evidence against RVonse’s thesis.

Are you under the impression that a practice largely put in place within the last century is the product of evolution, rather than societal choice?

I think adoption and step parenting is a great choice that our societies have made - I just don't think this is somehow an innate result of millions of years of evolution.

 

[pood]

That we as humans so often adopt and raise other people's children alongside our own is the societal choice.

Is it? I think 4.5 million adopted children in the U.S., with more than 100,000 adopted each year, is strong evidence against RVonse’s thesis.

Are you under the impression that a practice largely put in place within the last century is the product of evolution, rather than societal choice?

Um, no. I didn’t say that. I think it’s a social practice.

What I said was it was evidence against RVonse’s claim that we are evolutionarily wired to not care about children other than our own biological offspring.

Not everything we do is because of evolution. A lot and perhaps most of it is because of culture.

Vonse sounds like he’s is tossing around the bogus form of evolutionary psychology espoused by Jordan Peterson and other grifters.

 

[Toni]

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.

Lots of stable countries have reached and surpassed it. Much of the world is abandoning it, though. Funny the only way men can think of to encourage women to have more babies is to force them to instead of altering society to accommodate structures that support families instead of corporations.

Or becoming better at social interactions, empathy. And sex.

 

[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.

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.

And a number of animals adopt orphaned infants, usually of their own species but occasionally of others.

 

[pood]

Actually, I see I worded that post to Emily badly, to give the impression that I thought adoption was not a social choice. In retrospect I’m not sure what the “Is it?” was referring to. But to clarify: I don’t think there is any evidential justification for the claim that evolution has wired us to not care about other children, and the fact that adoption is so widespread is evidence against the claim. But adoption is not because of evolution, either.

 

[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.

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

Don’t have to,

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.

And our behavior is now different than monkey’s in this regard. Does that mean our biological evolution changed?

 

[Emily Lake]

That we as humans so often adopt and raise other people's children alongside our own is the societal choice.

Is it? I think 4.5 million adopted children in the U.S., with more than 100,000 adopted each year, is strong evidence against RVonse’s thesis.

Are you under the impression that a practice largely put in place within the last century is the product of evolution, rather than societal choice?

Um, no. I didn’t say that. I think it’s a social practice.

What I said was it was evidence against RVonse’s claim that we are evolutionarily wired to not care about children other than our own biological offspring.

That makes a lot more sense. That said, I was responding to bilby's post, which seemed to imply that caring for other people's kids in modern society is an evolutionary adaptation.

Not everything we do is because of evolution. A lot and perhaps most of it is because of culture.

I mean... it's mostly evolution. Forms alter over time, but still, the majority of what we do throughout our lives is in service to passing on our genes. Not every one of us, but definitely the vast majority. Everything from fitting into our social group to adornment to behavioral norms, fashion and fads and everything else is mostly in service to attraction to potential mates.

 

[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.

And a number of animals adopt orphaned infants, usually of their own species but occasionally of others.

A number of female animals will adopt orphans. Male animals usually (not always) just kill them.

 

[pood]

That we as humans so often adopt and raise other people's children alongside our own is the societal choice.

Is it? I think 4.5 million adopted children in the U.S., with more than 100,000 adopted each year, is strong evidence against RVonse’s thesis.

Are you under the impression that a practice largely put in place within the last century is the product of evolution, rather than societal choice?

Um, no. I didn’t say that. I think it’s a social practice.

What I said was it was evidence against RVonse’s claim that we are evolutionarily wired to not care about children other than our own biological offspring.

That makes a lot more sense. That said, I was responding to bilby's post, which seemed to imply that caring for other people's kids in modern society is an evolutionary adaptation.

Not everything we do is because of evolution. A lot and perhaps most of it is because of culture.

I mean... it's mostly evolution. Forms alter over time, but still, the majority of what we do throughout our lives is in service to passing on our genes. Not every one of us, but definitely the vast majority. Everything from fitting into our social group to adornment to behavioral norms, fashion and fads and everything else is mostly in service to attraction to potential mates.

Well, there is where we get into the dicey realm of evolutionary psychology, which has a number of serious problems.

 

[Emily Lake]

Actually, I see I worded that post to Emily badly, to give the impression that I thought adoption was not a social choice. In retrospect I’m not sure what the “Is it?” was referring to. But to clarify: I don’t think there is any evidential justification for the claim that evolution has wired us to not care about other children, and the fact that adoption is so widespread is evidence against the claim. But adoption is not because of evolution, either.

I haven't perfected my ESP, nor my time travel, so it's all speculative

For most mammalian species, females are pretty heavily wired to care for babies, even if they're not our babies. That same wiring doesn't appear to be the case for males.

And a lot of birds are just bloodthirsty killers who will starve or yeet their own chicks in order to raise a smaller number with better survival odds.

 

[Emily Lake]

That we as humans so often adopt and raise other people's children alongside our own is the societal choice.

Is it? I think 4.5 million adopted children in the U.S., with more than 100,000 adopted each year, is strong evidence against RVonse’s thesis.

Are you under the impression that a practice largely put in place within the last century is the product of evolution, rather than societal choice?

Um, no. I didn’t say that. I think it’s a social practice.

What I said was it was evidence against RVonse’s claim that we are evolutionarily wired to not care about children other than our own biological offspring.

That makes a lot more sense. That said, I was responding to bilby's post, which seemed to imply that caring for other people's kids in modern society is an evolutionary adaptation.

Not everything we do is because of evolution. A lot and perhaps most of it is because of culture.

I mean... it's mostly evolution. Forms alter over time, but still, the majority of what we do throughout our lives is in service to passing on our genes. Not every one of us, but definitely the vast majority. Everything from fitting into our social group to adornment to behavioral norms, fashion and fads and everything else is mostly in service to attraction to potential mates.

Well, there is where we get into the dicey realm of evolutionary psychology, which has a number of serious problems.

Meh. We're still animals. We're not excused from the behaviors that are observed across other mammals. Fashion is mate selection, social conformity is mate selection. Sure we've got lots of other excuses layered on top of it, but there's still a rather strong element of reproductive drive involved.

 

[pood]

The problems with evolutionary psychology.

 

[Emily Lake]

The problems with evolutionary psychology.

Again... Meh. One of the problems with evolutionary psychology as this article frames it, is that it wants to view things through the sole lens of darwinian natural selection. But darwinian natural selection is really only a part of it, and possibly not even the biggest part. Darwinian selection happens in response to the environment - but if the environment is stable and the species isn't at risk with every generation, it tends to be an extremely slow acting, minimally altering phenomenon. The likelihood of an alligator experiencing a genetic mutation that makes it better able to survive is, at this point, pretty damned close to zero. They haven't changed in hundreds of millions of years. There's also non-darwinian evolution... which put crassly is "any mutation that doesn't fuck us up to badly will get passed on". So we end up with all sorts of age-onset illnesses and genetic issues like parkinsons. They end up staying in the genetic pool because they start showing up after we've reproduced... and realistically once we've had kids we're of no more use evolutionarily. Sexual selection can exert enormous influence over a much shorter period of time. Like... we've measured the change in average height of males over the course of a thousand years or so with pretty good samples of skeletons as reference. Some of that is childhood nutrition, but a fair bit of it is also sexual selection - chicks dig tall dudes. So taller guys get to spread their seed more.

 

[Tigers!]

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

Personally, I'm rather fond of our species, and would rather not eliminate all the males. You guys have your uses, after all.

You are too kind.

 

[Bronzeage]

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.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Do you expect me to be nice to men because an upset man might kill me, or is this only a problem for women?