Darwin's Is Wrong About Sexuality

[Buddha1]

Imposed Non-Reproduction?

It is really a stupid excuse to say that in some species most males don’t mate because the alleged Alpha male doesn’t allow them to. Because we all know that sexuality is such a strong drive that mere violence can’t stop it. I mean there are so many males and females around in these temporary packs, while only the alpha male and female mate. So the rest of the gang can easily sneak up on the alpha-male and do some mating if they want.

Clearly, they are not interested.

 

[Buddha1]

QUALITY AND QUANTITY, BOTH!

Opposite sex need depicts quantity and same sex needs depict quality of life. Nature has not divided species into quantity and quality. They are both integral part of life and often indistinguishable in the nature. Broken from each other they lose their essence and usefulness to life as a whole. We are doing a great disservice to life by dividing a line between quality and quantity as if they were enemies.

 

[Buddha1]

Darwinism is hegemony in the name of science

Darwinism made certain assumptions based on highly selective data, and having established them as the new bible --- the unchallengeable truths, went on to invalidate and discredit all human natures that fell out of these assumptions.

When some part of the nature wouldn’t fit Darwinism, scientist would declare the ‘nature’ an abnormality rather than reconsider their theory. Or they would distort the nature to make them fit into Darwinism.

This is the power of the heterosexual ideology.

 

[Ophiolite]

DARWINISM --- A DISTORTED WORLDVIEWMen who are naturally close to heterosexuality (meaning they have a strong need to bond with women) do tend to think that the only purpose of males is to mate and merge with the female.

What led you to believe this? Where is the evidence this is so? I you have no evidence other than your unvalidated personal observations, then this is mere, trivial speculation.

The men who have a voice and speak --- and they speak a lot, and speak too loud because of their power, create an artificial environment where it appears that most men exist only to mate with and love women.

Please explain to me where this singular world view is promoted. It cannot be in literature, for literature is full of struggles against tyranny, against nature, against ones inner demons. Only a portion of it touches on men existing to mate with women, and then it is portrayed as only a single aspect of their character.
It cannot be in film, or popular novels, for they explore the same issues as literature, but with a more popular slant on it. Yes, in some instances the hero may be pursuing the heroine, but he is also fighting injustice, or the illuminati, or the Russians, or the town council.

But my point here is that, what happens when science --- which is a tool in the hands of the vested interest group which holds power ….. and which judges things only from what they appear on the outside ….. makes theories about male biology (sexuality) based on this viewpoint.

The result then is Darwinism.

Darwin was one of the heterosexual vested interested group who thought the entire male race shared his nature --- and he saw the world in that particular way, and went ahead to give scientific credence to this outlook, for the entire male race.

I believe this has been asked of you before and the response was negative. Have you read Origin of Species? Have you read any of Darwin's work? Have you read any of his biographies?
The answer was no. Perhaps you have been reading during your absence. How can you hope to make an analysis of Darwin's motives and contribute a radical reassessment of then without having that background as a minimum?
How can you do that Bhudda1 and expect to be taken seriously?

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Darwinism is hegemony in the name of science. This is the power of the heterosexual ideology.

 

[draqon]

what happened to that goat screwing guy? he got banned or somethin?

 

[Ophiolite]

He just briefly got the flock out of here.

 

[Hurricane Angel]

The basic purpose of sex is not procreation. The basic purpose is bonding --- that too particularly between the same sex. Reproduction is the secondary purpose of sex -- in that it just used sex to procreate because sex was the most effective avialable method.

Given the fact that we have no other way to pass on our genes I'd say there's a pretty good chance that sex is the only available method, to us humans anyway. Bonding is a secondary consequence of sex because of primates abilities to communicate and experience emotions, which came after the necessity of sex/passing of genes.

And humans have other methods of bonding, sex is not necessary. Do me and my male best friend have sex in order to be better friends?

 

[Fafnir665]

Darwin had sex with his mother.

 

[tree tree trin]

The coyote takes only one mate for life. Wouldn't you call that a bond? And there are several other animals that mate for life. So I think you should be more careful calling others "fool". Besides, it's not very nice.

Baron Max

i agree. though you can listen to darwin and understand what he's saying, what happened to the pleasure in life?

 

[Buddha1]

What led you to believe this? Where is the evidence this is so? I you have no evidence other than your unvalidated personal observations, then this is mere, trivial speculation.

If you're asking for peer-reviewed papers --- I am not aware of any. I wouldn't care.

If you're asking for common observations (and not just mine -- meaning, they can be verified by anyone)....... I can write a book on it.

This is what I have and everyone of us has learned eversince we were born --- in our biology books, and more importantly in the various wild life films that we have all grown up on. They never tire of telling you how each and every action of a male, and every single biological development in him is geared towards the sole purpose of his life --- to find a female and mate with her (of course to pass on his genes!). Even when a dog is peeing, he is actually leaving his scent so that a female can get scent of him.

The only time they show you males on wild life films on TV is when they are killing each other to mate with the female. And the commentators put in such big words --- like 'being in love', 'looking for love' etc., words that belie what we are seeing in the film.

T.V. is the singlemost important 'educating' medium of our times --- especially for youngsters. And isn't all that men want to do in their endless soap operas, movies, entertainment and even children's cartoon programmes and what have you ----- that all normal, masculine gendered men want only one thing ----- to fall in love with a girl and deal with relationship issues --- and they want it all the time.

And talk about another important influencing factor in a boy's life --- peer pressure. You can't miss the kind of environment, the myths they create ----- that it is not possible to be a normal male and not be obsessed about dating women.

Surely, you wouldn't have missed all that! Unless you're from a different planet.

 

[Buddha1]

Please explain to me where this singular world view is promoted.

Let me take an example. Last year on a bus, there were these two young guys in front of my seats. I couldn't help overhearing them. In fact, I like to observe male social behaviour.

One of them was obviously more masculine than the other. But the other seemed to have an upper hand. Because he kept talking about women incessantly. We passed from a co-educational school and this other guy says, "Hey let's change over our school to this one after high school. We'll have all these girls".

He enjoyed saying this, and he knew it made him feel superior. The other guy just kept quite. It was clear that he didn't quite fancy the idea. But he can't say it --- what kind of a man would not want to study with girls?

Thus the other guy was powerless to say what was really on his mind. We all are. We cannot say anything that goes against 'heterosexuality'. If we say it, we will promptly be labelled 'gay' and isolated out of the mainstream. Then whatever we say becomes a minority voice --- and thus not worth considering. The only choice men have is to either keep quiet --- and make it seem that you agree, and help strengthen the 'everybody is heterosexual' environment.......or you verbally agree with the person, even when your heart disagrees, and strengthen this 'heterosexual' environment even more.

And this happens all around us all the time. Due to their socio-sexual pressures boys incessantly talk about girls. This is important for them to prove their 'manhood'. This strengthens the myth that boys are basically over obsessed about girls. You can speak against it in a traditional society like mine (well its partly traditional), but you just cannot speak against it in a heterosexual society.

 

[Buddha1]

And there are several other examples.

Once in a health fete we had a stall on sexual health issues of men. Our neighbour was a talkative and rather vicious guy who had a stall on some other health product. He was zapped by our open support for what I then called "homosexuality".

One day he came and confronted me about the matter. He openly showed his disgust. He spoke loudly and criticised 'homosexuals. He had a friend with him or a cousin ----- who again was macho (I keep pointing that out, because that is my predominant observation). In fact he had forced his friend to come with him for moral support. But a look at the guy and I knew that he did not support him at all. He kept a very telling silence all through.

Of course the unsuspecting and one who takes men at their face value will mistake this for a support which adds to this 'everybody is heterosexual' myth. Because men are not empowered to speak their mind. They will either keep quiet or say what the heterosexual roles of men expect them to say.

 

[Ophiolite]

If you're asking for peer-reviewed papers --- I am not aware of any. I wouldn't care.

That does not surprise me: you are an unscientific, self deluded, uneducated, ignorant prat. By your own admission, and by the evidence of a cornucopia of inconsequential posts.

If you're asking for common observations (and not just mine -- meaning, they can be verified by anyone)....... I can write a book on it.

Fortunately, not one we would require to read.

This is what I have and everyone of us has learned eversince we were born --- in our biology books, and more importantly in the various wild life films that we have all grown up on. They never tire of telling you how each and every action of a male, and every single biological development in him is geared towards the sole purpose of his life --- to find a female and mate with her (of course to pass on his genes!).

Total, utter, complete nonsense. Either you are stupid, or you are a liar. Which is it? Your description of the alleged content of biology texts bares no relationship to their actual content. Fool, or liar? Which is it?

The only time they show you males on wild life films on TV is when they are killing each other to mate with the female. And the commentators put in such big words --- like 'being in love', 'looking for love' etc., words that belie what we are seeing in the film.

Utter, complete, absolute, irrevocable, total crap. This is not reality. You are a deluded fool, or a liar. Which is it?

T.V. is the singlemost important 'educating' medium of our times --- especially for youngsters. And isn't all that men want to do in their endless soap operas, movies, entertainment and even children's cartoon programmes and what have you ----- that all normal, masculine gendered men want only one thing ----- to fall in love with a girl and deal with relationship issues --- and they want it all the time.

And this is related to Darwin and science exactly how? Fool (or liar).

Surely, you wouldn't have missed all that! Unless you're from a different planet.

You seemed to have gone to another planet. It was pleasant with you gone. I for one do not welcome your pathetic, deluded, unscientific, evidence shy, agenda written drivel clogging up the forum. Be a good little nutter and piss off.

 

[Buddha1]

BIGOTED DARWINISM​

More importantly if males in nature had a primary, constant and omnipresent sexual need for females they’d instinctively live together in heterosexual societies like the west.

 

[Ophiolite]

BIGOTED DARWINISM​

More importantly if males in nature had a primary, constant and omnipresent sexual need for females they’d instinctively live together in heterosexual societies like the west.

Strawman argument, you bovine jerk. Only you claim that males have a primary, constant and omnipresent sexual need for females . Science does not claim that, so claiming there is no evidence for this argument of your own concoction is, naturally, true.

Are you being deliberately deceitful - a liar - or are you just thick?

 

[Buddha1]

BIGOTED DARWINISM​

Darwinism tells us that life is all about surviving. Well it is not! It is ALSO about surviving, but that is not the basic purpose of life.

Another misplaced idea of Darwinism is what constitutes the ‘fittest’. As per it, only that which reproduces is fit to live.

 

[Buddha1]

EVIDENCES AGAINST DARWINISM​

“Embryonic cannibalism helps the offspring in being better developed”

“Only 3 out of 3000 or so eggs laid by red Salmon fish mature.”

“the beetle father rearing hordes of eggs and the emerging caterpillars, regularly feeds on his children, so as to keep their numbers manageable as per the resources/ time available.”

All the above examples (from a discovery channel programme on animal cannibalism) quite clearly contradict the notion that the end goal of life is to procreate as much as possible and to orient every available ‘resource’ and each and every individual into the procreation business, as the ideology of heterosexuality (and its ‘biological’ counterpart --- Darwinism) entails.

Now if nature was so concerned about the number of offsprings being limited, so that the quality of individuals could be maintained, it makes perfect sense that it gives opposite-sex mating limited preference in the species.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

BIGOTED DARWINISM​

Darwinism tells us that life is all about surviving. Well it is not! It is ALSO about surviving, but that is not the basic purpose of life.

Another misplaced idea of Darwinism is what constitutes the ‘fittest’. As per it, only that which reproduces is fit to live.

please read something first on evolution before posting...

thank you.

 

[Ophiolite]

Darwinism tells us that life is all about surviving. Well it is not! It is ALSO about surviving, but that is not the basic purpose of life.

Another misplaced idea of Darwinism is what constitutes the ‘fittest’. As per it, only that which reproduces is fit to live.

Ok idiot child. You claim noo one engages you in debate or meaningful discussion. I shall give you another chance. [Don't run crying to mama that I called you idiot child, using that as an excuse for not debating the issues. I know you are stupid. Do you want to demonstrate you are also a coward.]

Darwinism tells us that life is all about surviving.
1. If you have not already done so, please define Darwinisim as you are using the phrase. If you have already done so, please specifiy the post number or date.
2. One year ago you had not even read any of Darwin's works. I shall presume you have rectified this. [It was a rather amusing oversight in one who chooses a thread titles "Darwin's (sic) is wrong about sexuality."] Please cite one or more passages from Darwin's work which tell us that life is all about surviving.

Another misplaced idea of Darwinism is what constitutes the ‘fittest’. As per it, only that which reproduces is fit to live.
1. Please cite one or more passages from Darwin's work where fitness is expressed in this way.
2. Please recognise that you are employing the classic strawman debating technique. You have erected a false definition (incorrectly defining fitness) which you then proceed to demolish, going on to claim that this undermines Darwinisim (whatever that is).
3. As previously noted such an approach indicates either that you are a) very stupid, b) very poorly educated, c) very dishonest, d) some combination of the foregoing. Which is it?