"Hogamus, higamus, men are polygamous"
"Higamus, hogamus, women are monogamous"

-Anonymous medieval quote

Men want Quantity
Women want Quality

I started wondering about some basic things. Marriage, assertiveness, and the natural and 'original' order.

Marriage is a quite recent 'invention' in sociological evolution.
Before the rise of agriculture and civilization, women lived in groups, educating and taking care of the children/youth, and each other.
Men lived more or less solitary, or in small cliques with 1 leader like gangs have now.

Men can't live together like women can. It's in our genes to be assertive towards each other.

As a man, you can really love a/your girl as a 'soulmate'. But no matter what, sooner or later you'll want to fuck some other girl, perhaps maybe only in your head. It's our nature, trying to deny it is bad.

So...

Why do girls in highschool always(usually) like the bullies or richest/most intelligent/toughest/best guy?
It's in their genes too. Their subconscious nature says that they'll be pregnant, so they'll need the best guy they can get because they'll be stuck with the kid. More factors come into play, but female selection is another topic.

Assertiveness in nature ... what does it have to do with it.
Chimps and gorillas (and many more animals) have an alpha male. Only the alpha male reproduces(actually the female chimps fake their loyalty and fuck the nice non-alpha males in secret who babysat, were sensitive and whatnot).
Suppose the alpha male stays on top for a couple mating seasons(usually they do). All the offspring will have the male's DNA. When they grow up, the only viable mating options will be with half-siblings, which is exactly what they do, and actually prefer. Chimpansees prefer to mate with their half-siblings over chimps from another group.
But always with a sibling from a different mother - the father is always the same.
Looking at that pattern, one can conclude that the male DNA (and other unknown
factors) are favored to stay in the group, as a sort of inbreeding. The female DNA (and rest) however, should be differentiated.

Thus, assertiveness in males serves the purpose of selecting only the very best.

---
This is speculation, but I think that the promiscue assertiveness mechanism directly influences evolution.
As they say in the army 'be all you can be'.
The alpha male has obviously expanded his limits, and I think that whenever he has done something that could be classified as 'revolutionary', like using a tool to kill his opponent, that at that moment, the semen he produces will have a modified DNA to reflect that intelligent change. I think there is a mechanism that maybe explains why certain species can adapt to their environment in 1 generation. Of course it also happens in the female egg, but I just do think that the mechanism of assertiveness makes it happen quicker, which could also explain why male DNA in humans was proven to (have) mutate(d) a lot faster than in women. The classical evolutional theorem that states DNA comes first before using a said ability (evolved intelligence) isn't correct imo. It's a 2 way interface, the mind influences DNA to 'adapt/mutate' to a change dictated by the mind, and vice-versa.
Besides, remember female eggs are all created at birth, male semen is recreated periodically, why do you think that is.
---

Anyhow, this mechanism is reflected in the bible. Abraham's wife, and only 'viable' offspring, was through his half-sister Sarai. Same happened with Isaak, although it wasn't his half-sister, but close.
A Jew still isn't a real Jew as long as his mother isn't Jewish.
And now you know why ALL old civiliztions had family names through the female line; so as not to mix up the lineage.
All the old cilizations' dynasties practiced this mechanism of reproducing. Look it up if you don't believe me.

So why is marriage and a 1 on 1 relationship unhealthy? Because it goes in against the natural order.
The natural order says that in a species where the male is physically dominant, the females live in groups, and the males 'fight' each other, so only the very best gets to reproduce.
This is the true process of evolution, it also explains some facts classical evolutionists find hard to explain, like how certain species can adapt to a hostile environment in 1 generation - because the newly produced semen by the males 'fixes' that.

How did we get into our current society's make up then?
Somewhere in the pre-civilization past, men acquired intelligence, and being superiour physically, agreed to divide the women among each other, so they didn't have to fight each other as much over women any more, and could concentrate on other things, like conquering others(war). The fact that so many women in the world are still handled as merchandise is a reflection of this.
(This might also be tied in with the emergence of men-only secret societies)

But we're humans no, and we have (higher) feelings of love, compassion, and such, why should we fight each other in assertive drifts?

Well, to go back to the chimps, it is the females there who secretly mate with the nice sensitive chimps. Notice that there it is the females who selected the mating partner, contrary to the classical male enforced sex.
If you stretch it further to human society, one could say that it should be the women who should select who to mate with.
We reached a state in our evolution where physical agression and assertiveness is the lesser evolving factor, and where the use of intelligence and invention is the motivating principle behind assertive behaviour. And so a men should do his best to try to 'earn' a women's love.

And maybe you think this sounds euginistic...
But differentiating the male DNA widely is detrimental to the species, it's not natural.

However, why do many 'recent' religions like Christianity say marriage is better?
It is not for reproductive purposes.
It's for emotional energetic purposes, why do you think you feel good when you're in love?

However this is a completely different topic involving taoism kinda stuff.

The sad thing about this is that many people have little need for love at all in their life.
They are content with basal sex.
And here is why religions focus on eradicating the feelings of jealousy, hate, etc.

Now think about the genesis story involving the serpent and the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and what the original 'sin' was...


Post script edit:
Many things fall in place once you realize this mechanism. For example the fact that women's periods synchronize when they live together for a long time, as happens with nuns. And also why every guy inherently knows once you have a girlfriend it's far easier to get other girls around you. Don't worry about the mechanism too much. As the saying goes: "the lord works in mysterious ways".
Follow your instinct.
Be nice, don't harm sentient beings.



[This message has been edited by satax (edited 12-12-2001).]

those are some very good points. from a evolutionary standpoint i feel that is completely correct but i also feel that there is more than simply evolution. humans love one another in some instances because there is more than the physical plane, we have a mentalities that trancend all of that. either way its a unique interpretation. would you mind if i put it on a site of mine?

quote:

---

Originally posted by syphon detonator:
humans love one another in some instances because there is more than the physical plane, we have a mentalities that trancend all of that.

---

i totally agree

>>>>Men want Quantity
Women want Quality<<<<

If men dont want quality, how come everytime I hear idiots talking about women they add "Does she give good head?"


>>>>Marriage is a quite recent 'invention' in sociological evolution.
Before the rise of agriculture and civilization, women lived in groups, educating and taking care of the children/youth, and each other.
Men lived more or less solitary, or in small cliques with 1 leader like gangs have now.<<<<

No they didnt. Men and women either lived together as a family, or in a communal little hut, but slept in married pairs in the same bed or on the same skin or whatever.

>>>Men can't live together like women can. It's in our genes to be assertive towards each other.<<<

How many men are in an army barracks?

>>>As a man, you can really love a/your girl as a 'soulmate'. But no matter what, sooner or later you'll want to fuck some other girl, perhaps maybe only in your head. It's our nature, trying to deny it is bad.<<<<

Ok. Trying to act on it just because its in your head is worse though.


>>>>Why do girls in highschool always(usually) like the bullies or richest/most intelligent/toughest/best guy?
It's in their genes too. Their subconscious nature says that they'll be pregnant, so they'll need the best guy they can get because they'll be stuck with the kid. More factors come into play, but female selection is another topic.<<<<

I observed women ended up with assholes with nothing to offer a child whatsoever. Usually the junkiees, drop-outs, potheads, and homos got the girls. As a matter of fact, a mans popularity with women in high school is directly inverse to his potential as a father. Thats why you always hear girls saying they come around in college.

>>>>Assertiveness in nature ... what does it have to do with it.
Chimps and gorillas (and many more animals) have an alpha male. Only the alpha male reproduces(actually the female chimps fake their loyalty and fuck the nice non-alpha males in secret who babysat, were sensitive and whatnot).
Suppose the alpha male stays on top for a couple mating seasons(usually they do). All the offspring will have the male's DNA. When they grow up, the only viable mating options will be with half-siblings, which is exactly what they do, and actually prefer. Chimpansees prefer to mate with their half-siblings over chimps from another group.
But always with a sibling from a different mother - the father is always the same.
Looking at that pattern, one can conclude that the male DNA (and other unknown
factors) are favored to stay in the group, as a sort of inbreeding. The female DNA (and rest) however, should be differentiated.

Thus, assertiveness in males serves the purpose of selecting only the very best.<<<

No it doesnt. Chimps arent people. Humans evolved differently. Chimp men can be competitive nutcases. Human men had to cooperate to survive. Thy left the tribe for long periods at a time (Chimp guys dont do this) If there was constant tension and sexual competition, the men would take their nice new weapons and kill each other so one can go back alive to fertilize all the women. Guess what didnt happen? Instead, monogamy evolved and the men all cooperated on the hunt, knowing they were all going home to some sweet round-headed root-burrowing, animal skinning little sweetheart.

>>>>This is speculation, but I think that the promiscue assertiveness mechanism directly influences evolution.<<<<

Negatively. Men unwilling to acknowledge their offspring and with no sense of duty, honor, or consequence breed a lot by your standards. Men who raise strong kids get shafted.

>>>>As they say in the army 'be all you can be'.<<<<

The same army that cant exist because men cant live together because of their "assertiveness"? I dont think they mean fuck a lot of women. I think they mean be strong and pull your weight.

>>>>The alpha male has obviously expanded his limits, and I think that whenever he has done something that could be classified as 'revolutionary', like using a tool to kill his opponent, that at that moment, the semen he produces will have a modified DNA to reflect that intelligent change. I think there is a mechanism that maybe explains why certain species can adapt to their environment in 1 generation. Of course it also happens in the female egg, but I just do think that the mechanism of assertiveness makes it happen quicker, which could also explain why male DNA in humans was proven to (have) mutate(d) a lot faster than in women. The classical evolutional theorem that states DNA comes first before using a said ability (evolved intelligence) isn't correct imo. It's a 2 way interface, the mind influences DNA to 'adapt/mutate' to a change dictated by the mind, and vice-versa.
Besides, remember female eggs are all created at birth, male semen is recreated periodically, why do you think that is.<<<<

Its a fragile tiny thing smaller than a cell...And cause a woman will go through a set number of eggs in her lifetime, one a month. Men can go through any number of sperm cells. It would suck if you had this ultra-intelligent, ultra-strong man who didnt have sperm that recreated, and here he is all ready to have kids, but is impotent now cause he used up his reserved jackin off as a kid.
Your idea of spontaneously mutating DNA inspired by invention is fucking retarded.

>>>>Anyhow, this mechanism is reflected in the bible. Abraham's wife, and only 'viable' offspring, was through his half-sister Sarai. Same happened with Isaak, although it wasn't his half-sister, but close.
A Jew still isn't a real Jew as long as his mother isn't Jewish.
And now you know why ALL old civiliztions had family names through the female line; so as not to mix up the lineage.
All the old cilizations' dynasties practiced this mechanism of reproducing. Look it up if you don't believe me.<<<<

All those old civilizations were proven inferior when patriarchal Indo-Europeans rode through them. And civilization is not a good word for them, Indo-Europeans, patriarchal, brought or invented civilization. Matriarchal people played with flowers and got killed.

>>>>So why is marriage and a 1 on 1 relationship unhealthy? Because it goes in against the natural order.<<<<<

No it doesnt. Pair bonds are the natural order. Thats why women hide their ovulation. I think its why men have that sleep hormone released when they ejaculate too. you hafta be able to trust the woman youre having sex with. If youre just fucking some dumb animal who wants your semen and that hormone hits and you sleep, you will probably be robbed and eaten unless monogamy and love intercede.
Theres a lot more evidence for the nature of monogamy. My arm pits smell so that when I have sex with my woman she absorbs my little pheromone odor thingee and associates it with sexuality and pleasure. thats my odor. Women have hymens so that their first sexual encounter will hurt. This is a way of telling them, Think about it asshole. Its a way of forcing an attachment. Women have clitorii? because they are meant for men to stimulate and strengthen their relationship. Their is ZERO utility to women enjoying sex in a nature you speak of.
My penis is a lot bigger than my cousins in the primate kingdom so my woman likes and misses me while Im killing mammoths. This is also a result of my smell and ability to bring her to orgasm, another thing totally shared with animals that has no utility in a sexuality you speak of.

>>>>The natural order says that in a species where the male is physically dominant, the females live in groups, and the males 'fight' each other, so only the very best gets to reproduce.<<<<

Thats only in species where males do not cooperate. What natural tools do we have to cope with the wilderness? Just our cooperative strength. We did not evolve to buttheads and kill each other over the right to impregnate women. We are bigger and stronger because we hunt. Women are too busy being pregnant to hunt. A tribe losing a man is wounded, but not too hurt. A tribe losing a pregnant woman is real fucked.

>>>>This is the true process of evolution, it also explains some facts classical evolutionists find hard to explain, like how certain species can adapt to a hostile environment in 1 generation - because the newly produced semen by the males 'fixes' that.<<<<

No it doesnt. Probably because we have huge brains, the ability to accumulate and record past knowledge with language, reason, creativity, and a social cooperative strength.

>>>>How did we get into our current society's make up then?
Somewhere in the pre-civilization past, men acquired intelligence, and being superiour physically, agreed to divide the women among each other, so they didn't have to fight each other as much over women any more, and could concentrate on other things, like conquering others(war).<<<<

So, theyd give up what they fought for so they could concentrate on fighting for what? Lemme get this straight...Men used to kill each other so they could fuck every woman (untrue, but thats what youre saying) but they agreed to stop doing that so they could kill each other and not fuck all the women...

>>>>The fact that so many women in the world are still handled as merchandise is a reflection of this.<<<<<

No its not. Thats a reflection of men's mastery of their environment to the point where women cleaning hides is not very necessary for just them. Of course thats selfish, stupid, and hurts future generations, but treating women as merchandise is generally associated with lower, baser, defeated slave cultures. The cultures that eat or enslave the men of those cultures were raised by a mom and dad.

>>>>(This might also be tied in with the emergence of men-only secret societies)<<<

Nope. That has more to do with the inherent nature of man and woman. Woman is tied to her offspring and the home, so she is worldy, and concerned with stability and food. Men have more glory hormones and feel cool bringing in a big but unreliable dead animal. They strive for upward things and the divine. Almost every culture saw man as sky reaching and woman as earthly. This was reinforced by the observation that the heavens fertilize the earth with liquid and later the earth gives birth. They thought of man as the one in touch with the heavens.

>>>>But we're humans no, and we have (higher) feelings of love, compassion, and such, why should we fight each other in assertive drifts?<<<<

If we are as you say, why not?

>>>>Well, to go back to the chimps, it is the females there who secretly mate with the nice sensitive chimps. Notice that there it is the females who selected the mating partner, contrary to the classical male enforced sex.
If you stretch it further to human society, one could say that it should be the women who should select who to mate with.
We reached a state in our evolution where physical agression and assertiveness is the lesser evolving factor, and where the use of intelligence and invention is the motivating principle behind assertive behaviour. And so a men should do his best to try to 'earn' a women's love.<<<<<

Sad. If you wish to see a generation of men acting like women, this is indeed the way. But since men arent women, that wont work very well.

>>>>And maybe you think this sounds euginistic...
But differentiating the male DNA widely is detrimental to the species, it's not natural.<<<<

Differentiating the DNA? What?

>>>>However, why do many 'recent' religions like Christianity say marriage is better?<<<

Because all the religions before it said marriage was good too. It is natural to man?

>>>>It is not for reproductive purposes.
It's for emotional energetic purposes, why do you think you feel good when you're in love?<<<<

Because then you stay together, and look forward to creating and raising strong stable future generations. Sounds like a reproductive success to me. If I were evolution, Id choose 100 men with a filial connection to each other over 1000 shitheads fertilized by random competing men. Maybe thats why the 100 men from strong monogamous tribes always conquered the 1000 with no connections ot their father and too busy squabbling over stupid shit like status. (acting more like chimps)

>>>The sad thing about this is that many people have little need for love at all in their life.<<<<

The sadder thing is, whoever says that needs it more than anyone.


>>>>Now think about the genesis story involving the serpent and the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and what the original 'sin' was...<<<<

Disobeying God in order to be as wise as him. In short, thinking we were better than nature.


>>>>Many things fall in place once you realize this mechanism. For example the fact that women's periods synchronize when they live together for a long time, as happens with nuns.<<<<

How does that relate to your idea? I bet its another way of securing monogamy. If a man lives with a lot of women, one of whom is his wife, he will not be able to impregnate other women while his wife is on the rag. Youd think if women were constantly competing for men to have sex with them, theyd ovulate at different times, usually when the other was bleeding, so the guy would think, ew, lets have a not bloody woman, and have sex with them. Instead the opposite is true.

>>>>And also why every guy inherently knows once you have a girlfriend it's far easier to get other girls around you.<<<<

Thats because girls think, Hey, what does she see in him? And then want it themselves. Also, because they are more intersting and mature than when they were dumb assholes who couldnt comb their hair. Either way, thats very social and probably not very true in nature. Did ancient tribes have girlfriends? The fact that societies dont even have a good word other than, a girl who is your friend should show how recent that invention is.

In short, yield.

are you defients girlfriend?

I am Defiant you dumbass, I told you, I dont know what happened but all of a sudden the password wont work for Defiant Exile. And when I request it to be Emailed, it says more than one user has registered with that address, so I dont get it. Someone fucked with it or something. Sweet Victory is my (Defiant Exiles) woman.

that was the year of the failed putsch right. well moving on.

yes men naturaly want to have as many partners as possible. primarily because those that did made a greater genetic impact than those that didn't wheras women generaly want a stable partner. because those that didn't had their offspring die off. male infidelity is to spread genes. female infedility is to prevent infanticide upon the rise of a new alpha male.

What alpha male? We do not have them, humans are naturally social and cooperative, not head-ramming chest-swelling assholes who kill each other over a female, that part is social.

syphon: I wouldn't mind if you put it on a site

to Spirit '22:

Forget most of what you learned about 'prehistoric' man. A lot of it is incorrect. I'm not claiming I know it all, I do however know there must have been a global civilization. I don't think this because of the standard alternative views(pyramid/sphinx/daniken etc). But rather because the more I research into hermetism/magick, and the other occult 'sciences', the more it becomes apparent the knowledge had to come from somewhere. I'm quite convinced something happened in our past that changed our evolution, and caused many of the problems we now see. To state it in a short manner, we have been 'disconnected' on purpose.
That's another topic though, doesn't really belong in this thread so I'll cut it down here.

Your whole point about men living/working together is due to one point. Conditioning and control. People that think differently are locked up or killed(just take a look at China for example).

As to the fathership arguement. Men aren't fathers. If a women wants a child, it is HER duty to be able to take care of him financially and emotionally. A father's role is to protect, not to educate, or should I rather say 'forcefully mold into shape' like happens now.

Monogamy didn't evolve. It was taught. Just take a look at so many old 'sacred' scriptures, and why they repeatedly stated that men must quit his polygamous ways, which is again related to another spiritual aspect.

quote:

---

Negatively. Men unwilling to acknowledge their offspring and with no sense of duty, honor, or consequence breed a lot by your standards. Men who raise strong kids get shafted.

---

Strong kids? Take a look around you, male domination has ruined the planet. No care for other lifeforms, no care for each other.

Your point about humans being hunters is also a moot point. Humans became meat eaters, even cannibals due to necessity.
The real diet of mankind is fruit, it is however quite impossible to survive on it in our current world, due to devolution and other factors.

As a matter of fact, here is the secret that genesis tried to tell.
Sex was the fall of mankind. Everywhere in the old testament, copulation is talked about as 'knowing' each other. Now what do you think the tree of knowledge stood for.
A being that is eternal does not need to reproduce. Only mortal beings reproduce.
I am not saying sex is bad btw, this is merely a fraction of what's ment in the scriptures.

I don't feel like explaining it all anyhow, it's pointless, people that truly search for answers will find and ask.

>>>>>Your whole point about men living/working together is due to one point. Conditioning and control. People that think differently are locked up or killed(just take a look at China for example).<<<<

No its not. Humans would have a very hard time surviving on their own, and certainly could not raise kids like that. At least not effectively enough to survive more than a few generations. We are social by nature. Like wolves.

>>>>As to the fathership arguement. Men aren't fathers. If a women wants a child, it is HER duty to be able to take care of him financially and emotionally. A father's role is to protect, not to educate, or should I rather say 'forcefully mold into shape' like happens now.<<<<

I know. Women are the educators because they are home with the child while the father is out killing large game. Hes still the father. Guess who he brings it home to.

>>>>Monogamy didn't evolve. It was taught. Just take a look at so many old 'sacred' scriptures, and why they repeatedly stated that men must quit his polygamous ways, which is again related to another spiritual aspect.<<<<

Some people are more evolved than others. Thats why they have low, round heads, thick skulls, brow ridges, large gnashing teeth, and smaller brains (like notoriously polygamous negroes)


Men unwilling to acknowledge their offspring and with no sense of duty, honor, or consequence breed a lot by your standards. Men who raise strong kids get shafted.

>>>>Strong kids? Take a look around you, male domination has ruined the planet. No care for other lifeforms, no care for each other.<<<<<

Thats simlpy not true. Do you like highways? Thats a product of patriarchy. If patriarchy has no care for other people, how come strong fathers traditionally form strong states to protect the things they love. Strong fathers were the backbone of the American revolution and subsequent state.


>>>>Your point about humans being hunters is also a moot point. Humans became meat eaters, even cannibals due to necessity.
The real diet of mankind is fruit, it is however quite impossible to survive on it in our current world, due to devolution and other factors.<<<

the real diet of chimps is fruit. This "necessity" you speak of was a fundamental one, answered by our canines. Hunting is in our biology.

>>>>As a matter of fact, here is the secret that genesis tried to tell.
Sex was the fall of mankind. Everywhere in the old testament, copulation is talked about as 'knowing' each other. Now what do you think the tree of knowledge stood for.<<<

The will to disobey god and strive after him. I think the tree of knowledge is a symbol of when we were stupid and not yet human, people remembered. The first thing that happened when they ate was know they were naked. Chimps dont care. People do (naturally, by the way, all cultures do something to mask sex signals)

Another thing.
Why is it that there are so many different 'races' and that racism has such a high surge?
Partly due to the environmental influences.
But also because of differentiation of male DNA. Humans have more different body traits that set them apart from each other than any other mammal. On the other hand, almost all cultures claim a global origin in a 'golden age', or paradise, or whatever. Those 2 things don't seem to match at first sight.
Racism is an instinctive evolutionary mechanism, preventing a tribe's proginy from getting 'tainted' by alien dna(and also including other undiscovered factors).
So because men were so 'smart' to start marriage and use it for reproductive purposes, they have accelerated the rate of differentiation, which gives us all these races in such a 'short' time.

With this mechanism, a whole tribe is blood-bound. Everyone knows in this world people usually only care about their family if they care at all. It's also a better environment to raise offspring in, in group (sort of like certain jews do, I forgot the name of it, kibbish or so?). A lot of men wouldn't be so frustrated when they grow up due to lack of female love/appreciation this way.

Do also not think assertiveness means no sex for the non alphas, or the males being aggressive fighters that kill each other.
Like I said humans have higher feelings, and we have intelligence, physical dominance is the lesser factor.
There is a reason why humans can have sex at will.
It's just that for reproductive purposes, this mechanism is the natural one.

And one of the most important arguments against monogamism is this: if you get hurt emotionally by your partner, you're stuck in a monogamous relationship. Humans being social creatures would be better off living in a group, to be able to have comfort from another (girl)friend if such a thing happens.

quote:

---

Some people are more evolved than others. Thats why they have low, round heads, thick skulls, brow ridges, large gnashing teeth, and smaller brains (like notoriously polygamous negroes)

---

Sounds like you're a neo nazi or racist.

quote:

---

Thats simlpy not true. Do you like highways? Thats a product of patriarchy. If patriarchy has no care for other people, how come strong fathers traditionally form strong states to protect the things they love. Strong fathers were the backbone of the American revolution and subsequent state.

---

I don't like highways. I don't like cars. I don't like so much of the technology of humankind because most of it is useless.
There is nothing new under the sun.
All needed knowledge is already known but obscured on purpose. There is absolutely no need for us to experiment on animals or the environment in order to understand nature. If people would only learn to live more in harmony with each other, all this knowledge would be given. You can't let a monkey play with a gun can you, he'd use it to gain an unfair advantage over his peers. Same thing here.
Also, we are completely dependant on our environment. The so called primitive tribes are living more in harmony with nature than this 'patriarchal' civilization you speak of.
And indeed, states protect possessions, not people. Do you know why? It's the male nature to be more territorial/possesional than emotional/caring, which is more a female nature(I'm just generalizing here don't come saying how there's exceptions etc I know that).

quote:

---

the real diet of chimps is fruit. This "necessity" you speak of was a fundamental one, answered by our canines. Hunting is in our biology

---

False. I don't practive what I preach though - I am omnivorous but not because I lke it, I am forced to because of this society here. If I were to live in brazil or india for example, I could change my feeding habit. But here I have to suffer and I do dislike it.
As to why our diet is fruit? Many reasons. I doubt you/anyone cares, but if you do start a new topic about it.
I'll tell you a strange something meanwhile. Old greek myths claim that the hyperboreans prime food was golden apples, called 'melon'. For what we call melons however, they had another word. But here's the strangeness. Melons are the only kind of food on earth that do not need to be digested in the stomach(for humans only). They pass directly into the intestines.
One can only wonder about the words' relationships to each other. Of course this isn't any kind proof but it's strange if you ask me.

quote:

---

The will to disobey god and strive after him. I think the tree of knowledge is a symbol of when we were stupid and not yet human, people remembered. The first thing that happened when they ate was know they were naked. Chimps dont care. People do (naturally, by the way, all cultures do something to mask sex signals)

---

Do you believe in the bible and god?
Cultures mask and taboo sex you know why? Because sex is a powerful way of unleashing your own potential. Sex magick is real.

quote:

---

Strong fathers were the backbone of the American revolution and subsequent state.

---

You are wrong if you think patriarchy is what gave rise to civilization. It's the hermetic wisdom that did that. It's this tradition that was brought to Europe by the knights templar, who handed it down to the freemasons, who formed the united states america. Btw, the name Amerika comes from the french La Merika(called like that by the french knights templar), merika being an egyptian name for the lost continent across the sea. The land of merika, Meri-Ka, soul(or is ka spirit not sure) of meri, mata meri being another egyptian title for Isis, Maria, the moon.

[This message has been edited by satax (edited 12-12-2001).]

quote:

---

Its a fragile tiny thing smaller than a cell...And cause a woman will go through a set number of eggs in her lifetime, one a month. Men can go through any number of sperm cells. It would suck if you had this ultra-intelligent, ultra-strong man who didnt have sperm that recreated, and here he is all ready to have kids, but is impotent now cause he used up his reserved jackin off as a kid.
Your idea of spontaneously mutating DNA inspired by invention is fucking retarded.

---

You logic is so backward. Why do you think we create sperm all the time then? We could also release one egg/copulation from a storage of several billion if that was nature's purpose.
And no my 'invention' is not retarded. Sperm cells are created, not mutated. You don't need to be a Ph.D or have spent a lifetime of observing the behaviour of shitting bees to understand nature.

quote:

---

Thats why women hide their ovulation.

---

Know what? Some women who lived on a fruitarian diet for several years claim you no longer lose blood during menstruation, and don't have as much trouble bringing birth. Perhaps true, perhaps not. There is probably some truth to it, otherwise the genesis writers wouldn't have mentioned it with the 'fall' of mankind.

quote:

---

Women have clitorii? because they are meant for men to stimulate and strengthen their relationship. Their is ZERO utility to women enjoying sex in a nature you speak of.

---

Sex for enjoyment is not the same as sex for reproductive purposes.

I also think your hunter arguments are retarded. Intelligence and love is what makes us powerful and human, not your outdated idea of an agressive hunter/conqueror bravely colonizing new worlds.

I'll tell you something else. If you deprave yourself of sex for a long time, you will notice your mind starts working better as a male. You'll try to do everything just so you can get laid.
It is just this mechanism that accelerates the evolution of sexual lifeforms. In lower mammals, sex is seen as the 'reward' for the best.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
I am Defiant you dumbass, I told you, I dont know what happened but all of a sudden the password wont work for Defiant Exile. And when I request it to be Emailed, it says more than one user has registered with that address, so I dont get it. Someone fucked with it or something. Sweet Victory is my (Defiant Exiles) woman.

---

ok, i was just joking but i didnt know that. thanks for clarifying i thought that was a lot like you defient.

i love jenna sliepic

Satax, your entire post is annoying garbage, so Im not even going to address it. Except this funny little end thing that was easy to cut and paste.

>>>I'll tell you something else. If you deprave yourself of sex for a long time, you will notice your mind starts working better as a male. You'll try to do everything just so you can get laid.<<<<

Thats better?

I like it on so many levels, especially since in your first post on this very thread, you said its wrong not to think about sex and how unnatural and damaging fucking everyone is.

Wow.

This guy satax stands a firm ground. I'd open my mouth, but there's not much that I can say that either hasn't already been said or won't make either side stronger. I must suggest, however, that satax be careful, because this "magick" he brings up provides a personal religious choice, which in a debate on anthropology doesn't hold much ground.

I'll just spectate on this one.


Get him, cuz!
------------------
Who travels widely needs his wits about him;
The stupid should stay at home:
The ignorant man is often laughed at
When he sits at meat with the sage.

[This message has been edited by Krigerhelt (edited 12-13-2001).]

Defiant you are an arrogant fool with little wisdom to back your ego up with.
Perhaps you should take notice you aren't dealing with high school kids you can boss around.

Your very comparison of the last paragraph to my first post shows your lack of insight.

yes defiant we don't currently have them but we still have an appendix.

Your entire argument against my stance on sexuality is, Im not compassionate and have a big ego? Can you say defeated?
Adam, we dont have what?

I re-read all of Satax's arguments, and I just realized where I had heard those ideas from. The only place I've ever heard the theory of "magick" and evolution through invention in the same place was in the insert of a Tool album. Is this your inspiration and research?

------------------
Who travels widely needs his wits about him;
The stupid should stay at home:
The ignorant man is often laughed at
When he sits at meat with the sage.

Dude if youre online, get on AIM.

I have been with my boyfriend for 7 years, I have never cheated on him, I dont not want to cheat on him and I can't imagine sleeping with anyone else. I know he has never cheated on me before and I'm proud of that. The fact is when you truley love someone you do not want to be with other people. You still look of course because it's natural but then you go home to your significant other. People cheat because there is something lacking in their relationship and they try to get it somewhere else. It is not in our genes to betray people, it's in our heads.
The problem with marriage today is that you can get married in a drive-through for fuck sakes. People just don't take the time to truley get to know someone and then wonder why it didn't work out later.

Seven years is long enough. What are you waiting for?
By the way thats real cool and congratulations. Good luck defending the idea of fidelity to the lepers here though.

I think there is a mechanism that maybe explains why certain species can adapt to their environment in 1 generation. Of course it also happens in the female egg, but I just do think that the mechanism of assertiveness makes it happen quicker, which could also explain why male DNA in humans was proven to (have) mutate(d) a lot faster than in women. The classical evolutional theorem that states DNA comes first before using a said ability (evolved intelligence) isn't correct imo. It's a 2 way interface, the mind influences DNA to 'adapt/mutate' to a change dictated by the mind, and vice-versa.
Besides, remember female eggs are all created at birth, male semen is recreated periodically, why do you think that is.<<<<

Well, i dont know as much history as yall do but, i do see some flaws in your reasoning in terms of genetics. First off male DNA does not mutate faster than female DNA. I think what you meant to say was that the DNA in sperm contains more mutations than does the DNA in eggs. But, it does'nt take an elaborate mechanism of assertiveness to explain this. Instead, it can be explained by simple math. The most vunerable state in terms of when DNA can be mutated is during replication. When the DNA strand is being sythesized the frequency of error in terms of inserting the wrong base occurs about every 1 in 10^9 times. In addition, your replication machinary has the abililty to detect these mismatched pairs and correct them. However, as you age the effeciency of your DNA repair mechanism is diminished. Now, the male produces millions of sperm cells every day. It's been awhile since i took developmental biology so i dont recall the exact number. So, lets just say he produces 10^6 sperm cells a day. I also dont recall at what age in a males life he begins producing all this sperm but, lets say he starts at 12 and dies at 75. So, in 63 years he will have produced 63 million sperm cells. So, there is 63*10^6/10^9*100=6.3% chance of a mutation ocurring during sperm production in a male. Now, you make another statement saying a female produces billions of eggs. That's also incorrect. Again, i dont recall the exact amount from developmental biology but, i know it's no where near that amount. It's true all the eggs she will ever have are already produced while she is an embryo. But, the amount is far lower than the amount of sperm produced by males. So, if a girl starts mentsruation at 12 and stops at 60. She will have to had at least 48years*1egg/month=576eggs. So, there is a 576/10^9*100=5.76*10^-7 chance of a mutation occuring during egg production. Which is a lot lower chance than than that of sperm production. In addition, the male determines the sex of the offspring. Humans have 46 chromosomes 23 from each parent. Your mom gives you 22 autosomes and 1 X chromosome. Your dad gives you 22 autosomes and either an X or a Y chromosome. If your dad gives you an X chromosome then you are a girl. If he gives you a Y chromosome then you are a guy. So, the higher mutation rate in sperm production can be passed equally to males and females.

>>>>And maybe you think this sounds euginistic...
But differentiating the male DNA widely is detrimental to the species, it's not natural.<<<<

Well, that depends. If the species have a strong genetic makeup such that there are little or no genetic diseases then i would agree. In this case inbreeding would be a good thing. However, if the species has a weak genetic makeup such that there are many genetic diseases then introducing DNA from a male with a strong genetic makeup will be benefical.

spirit, your pits smell like skank because bacteria thrive in the dark warm wetness. bacteria which excrete waste products.

pheremones are scentless.

go have a shower and try some deoderant.