Author Archive

What I Really Think About Human Beings as a Species: 5

August 10, 2014 22 comments

In the previous post of this series, I put forth an idea on what might be the real factor underlying religious zealotry.

They just want an excuse to screw over somebody else while simultaneously feeling righteous about doing it.

I have also hinted at this idea in one of my older standalone post. Note that this rationale is not unique to traditional religions and can be seen among ardent followers of secular religions such as communism and capitalism- well, pretty much every single ideology. Here are a few examples of what I am talking about..

Many devout Christians believe in concepts like heaven and hell, but have you ever met somebody with any evidence of their existence? Isn’t it odd that a drug like DMT provides a far more realistic spiritual experience than a lifetime of studying the bible and praying to an entity nobody in their right mind has ever seen? Why was the belief of people in a christian god almost always rewarded with drudgery, poverty, disease and incessant wars? But far more importantly, was everybody always too stupid to realize that there was no god? And why are evangelicals who claim personal communication with god so preachy about the sexual lives and behaviors of other people while indulging in those very same behaviors themselves? Why are overtly devout Christians not interested in solving problems that might actually improve the lives of their fellow human beings? Why devote so much mental energy to something that has never provided any material benefit?

Now let us turn to Islam. Isn’t it odd that so many of its followers obsess about supposed insults to their prophet even when doing so has no positive material effects on their pathetic lives? Does their beliefs put more (and better) food on their table? What about reducing infant mortality and morbidity? Does their god put indoor plumbing in the houses of believers? Does he provide them with electric power, air conditioners and HDTVs? Does fidelity to that belief system result in the faithful getting free high-end sports cars and SUVS? Did their god or prophet even instruct them to purify drinking water by boiling it? Isn’t it therefore a bit odd that so many of the believers of that belief system are willing defend the “honor” of an entity who has not manifested himself- let alone benefited his vocal followers to the extent of even a single slice of pizza?

Hinduism is no better. Has belief in any part of Hinduism resulted in the spontaneous appearance of even a single morsel of edible food. Has belief in any part of Hinduism improved the quality of drinking water, general sanitation or somehow reduced the spread of any infectious diseases? Has it improved the general health, life expectancy or life quality of its believers? Has belief in any part of the caste system improved the lives of its believers? Is there anything in Hinduism beyond stupid rules about caste, ritual pollution and some bullshit stories. I should point out that other religions are no better in that respect. Isn’t it odd that most followers of this supposedly spiritual religion are among the most greedy, deceptive and selfish assholes you will ever have the misfortune of meeting. Then there is the peculiar problem of how a mostly illiterate people can maintain fidelity to a religion whose texts were and are still mostly unavailable or nonexistent.

Secular religions are no different. How many people who defend capitalism (especially financialism) have actually benefited from it pre-WW2 pure form? Note the choice of words “actually benefited from it” as opposed to “barely managed to survived under it”. What about libertarianism? Have you seen real life examples of the scenarios described in Ayn Rand’s fairy tales? The same holds for state communism- though to a lesser degree as it did actually benefit (at least initially) most of those who lived under it. My point is that followers of secular religions display the same outcome blindness as those who believe in traditional regions.

But why are the vast majority of devout followers of any religion, traditional or secular, so blind to the outcome of their beliefs? Why are they so persistent in their beliefs- especially in the complete absence of validation of those beliefs. Why would they willingly and enthusiastically structure their lives around beliefs that offer no measurable utility? Even a normal 8-year old child understands that people who habitually renege on their end of the deal are untrustworthy. Yet most adults exhibit great certainty about the existence of an invisible all-powerful friend who has never made a single slice of pizza materialize before them. One possibility is that most adults are stupider than an average 8-year old. It is also possible that belief in god, religion and ideology is a defense mechanism against nihilism and the fear of uncertainty. However neither of the previous two explanations account for the central, and most important, feature of all traditional and secular religions.

The one common feature of all religions, traditional or secular, is unrelated to belief. It is about what they seek to rationalize and justify. All religions and popular ideologies are about rationalizing and sanctifying the abuse, robbery, murder and coercion of others. Initially they seek to do that to those who don’t believe in their fairy tales. However sooner or later, they run out of unbelievers and turn on themselves and start persecuting their less-faithful members. That is the real reason why religions that gain followers (such as islam, capitalism) become more extreme as they do so.

Will write more about this connection in the upcoming part of the series.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Aug 10, 2014

August 10, 2014 1 comment

These links are NSFW.

Belfies: Aug 10, 2014 – Cuties taking selfies of their behinds.

More Belfies: Aug 10, 2014 – More cuties taking selfies of their behinds.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

NSFW Links: Aug 3, 2014

August 3, 2014 8 comments

These links are NSFW.

Slim Outdoor Cuties: Aug 3, 2014 – Nubile cuties enjoying the outdoors.

More Slim Outdoor Cuties: Aug 3, 2014 – More nubile cuties enjoying the outdoors.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

What I Really Think About Human Beings as a Species: 4

August 2, 2014 34 comments

In the previous post of this series, I made an observation about the fundamental precondition necessary for most humans to take abuse from another human.

Person B will willingly take abuse from person A if they get to abuse person C a bit more.

Many readers might not like the idea that most (if not all) supposedly complex and ‘rational’ human behaviors arise from such an odd thought process. Moreover, the very suggestion that a lot of human behavior and social mores are driven by such ‘un-noble’ considerations will offend many more. But the unintuitiveness or offensiveness of an idea or concept does not make it untrue. No amount of wishful thinking and sophistry can alter the reality of the earth not being the center of the universe. Similarly quantum mechanics is not particularly intuitive or satisfying to us, but is extremely relevant to understanding semiconductivity. My point is that an idea or concept must be judged by its ability to explain a phenomena, make verifiable predictions AND stand up to scrutiny. Does the concept proposed at the beginning of this post fulfill those criteria? Well, let us see..

As you might recall, one of the questions posed in my previous post concerned the relative lack of sexual activity in the lives of most chronically single women in developed countries. While there are many popular sophistic and plausible sounding explanations (or even repudiations) for this phenomena, it is clear that chronically single women are not having anywhere near the amount of the sex they want to have and, more importantly, could be having. Now there are those of you who might say that this validates some bullshit “evo-pysch” mumbo-jumbo about women desiring only “alpha” guys. But desiring is not the same as having it and a lot of men fantasize about young attractive women when they are having sex with their old wrinkly wives. Clearly the converse is feasible as demonstrated by female prostitution.

So why would an average looking woman make herself sexually unavailable when a much better looking woman would have quality sex with almost any man for a reasonable hourly rate.

Some of you might attribute this behavior to their need of maintaining personal ego, social image etc- and there is something to be said about that. But such factors can account for only a minority of rejections as most men are not very ugly, very short or very poor. Clearly there is much more to this behavior than maintaining their own social status and here is a clue- most woman are a bit too enthusiastic about criminalizing paid sex. The rather strong urge among women to criminalize paid sex has been traditionally interpreted as a response to competition. To put it another way, the conventional narrative suggests that women see sex workers as competition for the overpriced services they themselves offer- like “established” cab companies protesting about non-traditional rideshare services such as Uber. But is that really the case?

The argument that paid sex is real competition only holds true if the vast majority of women in that society are in long-term marriages or similar long-term relationships. But that has not been the case in most developed countries for the last three to four decades. To rephrase it- paid sex is not especially competitive with short-term or casual sexual relationships, if they are readily available. But it is clear that such short-term relationships are not available to most men- and this poses an interesting question.

Why would a person want to disrupt an event they do not want to participate in, especially if it does not affect their material interests- one way or the other.

A better understanding of this irrational behavior can be obtained by looking at the issue of religious fundamentalism- especially as it applies to zealots who try to enforce their own standards on those who might not share the former’s bizarre beliefs. Take the issue or religious taboos against certain kinds of food (pork, beef etc) or drink (alcohol, coffee, tea etc). Have you ever wondered why most muslims are so offended by others eating pork, or most hindus offended by those who enjoy eating beef, or muslims condemning those who drink alcohol or observant mormons doing the same for coffee and tea? What is going on? While sophists will try to make up “facts” to justify such arbitrary beliefs, it is clear that eating pork or beef is not associated with any measurable negative effects. The same holds for the moderate consumption of alcohol or caffeinated drinks. But why are religious zealots so resistant to reason? Here is an idea..

They just want an excuse to screw over somebody else while simultaneously feeling righteous about doing it.

It comes down to making oneself feel powerful by abusing those you can without stressing your cognitive dissonance. In the upcoming part of this series, I shall write more about the very strong connection between the need to believe in organised religion and desire to abuse or hurt other people- even if doing so results in no material gain.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Jul 31, 2014

July 31, 2014 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW.

Slim Outdoor Cuties: Jul 31, 2014 – Hot, young and slim outdoor cuties.

More Slim Outdoor Cuties: Jul 31, 2014 – More hot, young and slim outdoor cuties.

I have almost completed some new longer, and partially interrelated, posts on my usual topics. Will start posting them in a day or two.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

NSFW Links: Jul 20, 2014

July 20, 2014 3 comments

These links are NSFW.

Nubiles: Jul 20, 2014 – Slim, pretty and young nekkid cuties.

More Nubiles: Jul 20, 2014 – More slim, pretty and young nekkid cuties.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Musings

What I Really Think About Human Beings as a Species: 3

July 13, 2014 38 comments

In the previous part of this series, I briefly talked about my theory about why married women almost universally seem to lose interest in sex with their husband. I also made the observation that this particular behavior is conditional to the options of the man in the relationship, especially his ability to leave it. But why would that be so? Why does the ability of a man to leave a relationship easily make it significantly harder for the woman to deny him frequent sex? Let me put that question in another way- why does the mere presence of an ‘out’ option make for the guy have such a drastic effect on the willingness of the woman to have sex with him? Clearly, the ‘out’ option does not add inches to his height or dick, muscle mass to his body or make him more handsome. So what is going on?

Many people, especially those who subscribe to the solipsistic mumbo-jumbo of evolutionary psychology, might say that a man who can easily leave a relationship is demonstrating his higher ‘status’ or “fitness”. But does reality support that belief? Who is more likely to be in a sexless marriage or relationship – a supposedly high status and financially secure guy or someone who plays drums in some semi-famous cover band? How can C- and D-grade celebrities pull pussy of a quality that staid multi-millionaires can only dream of? Why don’t large financial net worths make women wet and horny?

Some sophists might say that fame and celebrity are far more ancient “evolutionary” switches for female horniness than money or education. But there is a big problem with this assertion. Even intelligent and educated women do not marry rich and/or “highly educated” men because of any real physical or emotional attraction. All such marriages are, and have always been, shams based in the need for social approval and financial comfort for the woman. Remember that a woman married to a doctor or manager will cheat on him with a C- grade celebrity, but one in a relationship with a C-grade celebrity will never cheat on him with a doctor or manager.

While there are many possible explanations, such as this one, for why a minor celebrity can pull far more pussy than a billionaire- we are still left with one important but only partially answered question. Why do married women eventually go to great lengths for not having sex with their husbands- especially if he is not ugly, poor or otherwise downright repulsive?

A more complete answer to that question can be found by looking at a similar category of women- the ones who are chronically single and barely having sex.

One of the major falsehoods promoted by game blogs is the idea that almost all non-ugly and chronically single women are having lots of sex. While a minority of non-ugly and chronically single women do indeed have busy sex lives, the majority do not. Now, I am not claiming that the majority of such women are asexual or abstinent and there is every reason to believe that they have occasional booty calls and short-term flings. But none of this occasional sexual activity remotely approaches what they could have in an average non-marital relationship.

So what is stopping them from having such relationships? After all we live in the age where women have well-paying jobs, access to effective contraception and easy treatment of STDs- not to mention a much lower incidence of such diseases. Clearly, these women do not have to overcome real obstacles or face major risks to enter into such relationships- and yet they don’t. But why not? and what does any of this have to do with why married women have progressively less frequent sex with their husbands. Well.. it is connected, but understanding that connection requires you to ask questions that most would never even consider in the first place.

Would chronically single women spend most of their time on the sexual sidelines if they knew that their lack of participation had no negative effect on the sexual lives of men?

While there is no shortage of morons spouting some bullshit about women having little intrinsic sexual desire, how they want to concentrate on their careers or how modern dating is especially risky and full of frauds- a lot of these “common sense” bullshit explanations just does not add up. Let us first consider the claim that women have little intrinsic sexual desire. While that explanation may seem plausible at first, women buy too many romance novels and are a bit too willing to have sex with famous/good-looking men for that to be true. While female sexual desire is not a mirror image of its male equivalent, there is no doubt that it is similarly powerful.

The explanation that women are increasingly career minded is also based in bullshit since most human beings (men and women) work to live. Only the retarded and autistic minority (mostly “clever” men) live to work. Another plausible sounding explanation requires us to believe that “modern” dating is somehow significantly more riskier than it was in the past. However almost every measure of such risk based on real data suggest that people in the past were not much nicer, or much worse, than those alive today.

So what is really going on? Why would a significant minority of mediocre women choose to hang on the sexual sidelines? What do they gain from such behavior and how could it be enough to compensate for the obvious loss?

Well.. it comes down to ego, but not quite in the way most of you understand it. Some of you might think that rejecting men might be a psychological defense mechanism used by mediocre women to deny their own mediocrity. While there might be some truth to the idea that women are more status-obsessed and status-sensitive than men, repeatedly torpedoing your own sex life would be a really odd and expensive way to raise self-perceived status. Moreover, being single past a certain age (say.. 30) actually reduces their status within their peer group. But there is another psychological mechanism that can explain this behavior.

Person B will willingly take abuse from person A if they get to abuse person C a bit more.

Confused.. here are is an example. Have you wondered why poverty-stricken whites in the american south were and are so willing and eager to abuse poverty-stricken blacks on behalf of their rich white masters? If you think about it rationally, the poverty-stricken white person does not experience any material gain from abusing the poverty-stricken black person. But they do gain in a non-material way. Specifically, the ability to freely abuse poverty-stricken blacks allows them to scratch their insatiable human itch to hurt, abuse, enslave and kill others. Similarly people who belong to the lower castes in India experience great pleasure from abusing those of even lower castes. In both of the above mentioned examples, actively working against your best interests is preferred over working for it as long as the former comes with an ability to abuse even more desperate and needy people.

Will write more about this particular issue in the next part of this series.

What do you think? Comments?


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 96 other followers