3 ms·

Maybe all that women want is someone they can talk to as human beings and be with? No, that isn't true either. It might be true for me, but it isn't true for

Maybe all that women want is someone they can talk to as human beings and be with? No, that isn't true either. It might be true for me, but it isn't true for someone else. The problem with such generalizations is something rather simple; nature is not absolute. This works if women are absolute beings who care about nothing more than finding a secure man to breed with. There are women like that and there are men like that too, but it isn't a hard and fast rule. Gender is in fact a spectrum and the idea of women you have in mind for whom such stuff works is only a portion of the total population. There are so many beautiful women and hawt men out there who want more to life than mindless pickups and sex. Where do evolutionary generalizations come into over here? Think of it this way; you are beating billions of years of evolution every time you use a condom. Yes, male and female brains are different, but there are fundamental differences within those sets as well (I am living breathing proof of this). So, maybe just maybe such things don't work in the longer term. As it assumes that both parties are in the "game" for something or the other. What happens when you mature and you realize that you want more? If you treat most women as objects of desire sooner or later your relationship will crash and burn. After all s/he is nothing more than a fancy toy for you. Emotions have to be felt not reasoned with. I think that the most important discovery any of us can ever make is that; love is not a noun but a verb. It is something you have to work for. It simply doesn't "just happen". It takes years of emotional intimacy and mutual respect to have a relationship that can be classified as "true-love", and perhaps that is something worth the while in the longer run... [edit: forgot grammar and spell check]

tome 16y ago
Think of it this way; you are beating billions of years of evolution every time you use a condom. I used to think this, but I'm not so sure any more. Isn't it just a more specific version of "you are beating billions of years of evolution every time you see a women you don't want to have sex with"? I wouldn't be surprised if evolution and condom use can be seen to fit togething in an interesting and compatible way.
- todayiamme 16y ago
  >>>I wouldn't be surprised if evolution and condom use can be seen to fit togething in an interesting and compatible way.<<< Most of my ideas on evolution have been shaped by Richard Dawkins. If you've read his books then you probably know what is coming. His proposal to look at evolution from the gene point of view is something that is simple and logical to me. He points out that individuals are temporary collections of genes, and it is these genes that play games with us not the other way around. I love it how he puts; we are survival machines built by our genes. However, for some reason some of those machines have developed this ability to talk to one another over things they have created. They seem to be able to reflect upon their own decisions and instincts in order to improve their response to the environment. There is no doubt that the gene/s that enable this became wildly successful in the gene pool. So, in a quirky way we have this ability given to us by genes that prevent us from carrying out the sole purpose of our existence to those genes; replication. On the other hand we can argue for the-men/women-you-don't-have-sex-with example by pointing out that each time we mate there is a finite cost attached to it, and in order for the genes to be propagated most efficiently we have to take that into account. To a gene what is the use of having 30 descendants if none of them live long enough to reproduce? What I am trying to say is that we aren't governed by our gene programming to the extent suggested in pop-culture. The genes themselves have given us a backdoor, and we exploit that backdoor a lot. It is an extremely strange recursion that boggles my mind. So, at the end, yeah, you are right. There is nothing for which we can be 100% sure, but you have to admit this is a fun game. ;)
etherael 16y ago
Emotions have to be felt not reasoned with. This sounds somewhat arbitrary and unreasonable, why does it have to be this way? Why can't a person make rational filters on their emotional experience and only experience emotion through that? How is this any less valid than behaving in a more emotionally unstable fashion?

tome 16y ago

Think of it this way; you are beating billions of years of evolution every time you use a condom. I used to think this, but I'm not so sure any more. Isn't it just a more specific version of "you are beating billions of years of evolution every time you see a women you don't want to have sex with"? I wouldn't be surprised if evolution and condom use can be seen to fit togething in an interesting and compatible way.

todayiamme 16y ago
>>>I wouldn't be surprised if evolution and condom use can be seen to fit togething in an interesting and compatible way.<<< Most of my ideas on evolution have been shaped by Richard Dawkins. If you've read his books then you probably know what is coming. His proposal to look at evolution from the gene point of view is something that is simple and logical to me. He points out that individuals are temporary collections of genes, and it is these genes that play games with us not the other way around. I love it how he puts; we are survival machines built by our genes. However, for some reason some of those machines have developed this ability to talk to one another over things they have created. They seem to be able to reflect upon their own decisions and instincts in order to improve their response to the environment. There is no doubt that the gene/s that enable this became wildly successful in the gene pool. So, in a quirky way we have this ability given to us by genes that prevent us from carrying out the sole purpose of our existence to those genes; replication. On the other hand we can argue for the-men/women-you-don't-have-sex-with example by pointing out that each time we mate there is a finite cost attached to it, and in order for the genes to be propagated most efficiently we have to take that into account. To a gene what is the use of having 30 descendants if none of them live long enough to reproduce? What I am trying to say is that we aren't governed by our gene programming to the extent suggested in pop-culture. The genes themselves have given us a backdoor, and we exploit that backdoor a lot. It is an extremely strange recursion that boggles my mind. So, at the end, yeah, you are right. There is nothing for which we can be 100% sure, but you have to admit this is a fun game. ;)

etherael 16y ago

Emotions have to be felt not reasoned with. This sounds somewhat arbitrary and unreasonable, why does it have to be this way? Why can't a person make rational filters on their emotional experience and only experience emotion through that? How is this any less valid than behaving in a more emotionally unstable fashion?