It is no secret that my views on human beings as a species have been pretty negative for a long time. I have also made it clear, on at least one previous occasion, that my views are not the result of disappointment and therefore are not typically misanthropic. I tend to see things as they are, rather than as they are supposed or expected to be. As regular readers also know, more than a few of my previous posts have been about the apparent inconsistencies in widely held views about the human mind and observed human behaviors. In a few of those posts, I have explicitly suggested that most human beings are largely driven by the desire to cheat, screw over, damage, hurt and kill others- even if does not confer any measurable advantage to them. While I have my own theories on what drives this almost uniquely human urge, the current post will talk about another aspect of this phenomena- its ubiquity. I will also talk a bit about why this urge will almost inevitably result in human extinction.
Let us start with a recent news-piece about how officials in the Pyrenees are considering how to curb the sexual appetite of Pyros the bear to give his rivals a chance to mate. This news-piece also reminded me of another similar one from a few months ago- Danish zoo that killed Marius the giraffe puts down four lions. While reading both of them makes you wonder about the world view and belief systems of the “officials” in question, almost nobody seems to be asking the most important question- How is interference in the lives of wild animals based on questionable beliefs rational? As you will soon see, the generalized form of this question is intimately connected to what I am going to talk about in the rest of this post.
But before we go any further, let us first be clear about my views on the treatment of animals. While I am against cruelty towards animals, I am not against eating meat or killing animals that are (directly or indirectly) dangerous to human beings. Though I am against the horrible conditions prevalent in the factory farming of animals- especially in north america, I am not against the concept of raising and killing animals for food, as long as it is done in a way that causes minimal pain and suffering to the animals in question. Nor am I against the hunting animals, as long as it is for obtaining food or protecting oneself.
And this brings me to another facet of the problematic relationship between humans and other animals. Large-scale trophy hunting of animals, especially large mammals, was once a very popular pursuit. It reached its peak in the 1840-1914 time period and was responsible for the near extinction of many large mammalian species. Curiously, neither food nor security was the main reason behind such large-scale trophy hunting. So what was it about? Some might say that hunting large animals is about displaying masculine prowess. While that was partially true in the era before long-ranged rifled guns became commonplace, it is really hard to argue that the ability to safely kill an animal from 200 meters with an accurate rifle is somehow linked to masculine prowess. The same questions could also be asked about commercial whaling or clubbing seals by the tens of thousands for fur. So what was all this large-scale animal killing really about? Could it be the act of killing others for no rational reason is more pleasurable than is commonly understood?
Let us now turn our attention to pets. Why do humans have pets? Why do people constantly try to anthropomorphize their pets? Now some of you might say that most humans do infact care about other animals, especially those species that are kept as pets. But is that really true? If that were true why do humans kill so many of the pet animals who cannot find a human owner? Is mass killing of animal pets that cannot find human owners really about their welfare, or is it about something else? And why do humans spend that much time, money and effort to castrate pets, feed them, anthropomorphize them and then try to make them live like humans than the animals they are? On a related note, why were circus acts with animals once so popular? What is the entertainment value of watching lions, tiger and elephants jump through hoops or sit on tables? Why do people go to see animal trick shows at places like Sea World? What about zoos? What pleasure do humans derive from creating subservient animals and then observing their subservience?
Moving on to how human beings behave towards each other.. Why was overt slavery so common in previous eras, even if the slave-owners could not make a worthwhile financial profit from the labors of their slaves? Why go through the trouble of obtaining and abusing people as slaves when the same amount of work could be willingly and enthusiastically done by economically marginalized members of your own group. Why use slaves when there was no shortage of poor and desperate people? Why did rich people of previous eras prefer to have slaves over poorly paid employees? What was the real distinction between slaves and poor people? Does this have anything to do with how humans interact with animals? Could it be that human enjoy having , using, abusing others as slaves rather than taking the most rational way out and hiring people to do a given job?
Then there is the question of money, or more specifically why some people accumulate money beyond any practical ability to spend ever spend it. In a previous series of posts, I had put forth the idea that a few people accumulate money to impoverish everyone else than make their own lives better. Do you really think billionaires want to uplift social morality, educational standards or support LIEbertarian policies because they want to help their “fellow” human beings? Maybe making lost of money is not about showing others that you are better than them. Maybe it is really about willful destruction of the lives of people they do not even know in person. Or consider all institutional and corporate hierarchies. What if they are really about abusing and screwing other others rather than anything related to the supposed function of those institutions? What if bureaucracy is not really about making institutions work, but creating the groundwork for finding creative ways to fuck over other people- especially those you don’t even know. And why are priests of all religions more concerned with disrupting the sexual lives of others than their so-called “god” or public welfare?
The way women see, interact with and behave towards men is another example of this pattern. Why are so many fat white suburban women concerned about prostitution? Why do they want men to jump through all sorts of hoops for a slim chance of having sex with mediocre women? Why are they so concerned about misogyny? Why do ugly middle-aged hags want to be told that they are beautiful? Why complain about guys who treat them well? Why are most divorces initiated by middle-aged women past their physical prime? Why look down on male sexual desire while building your lifestyle on it? I could go on and on, but my point is that the attitude of women towards men is substantially more adversarial than can be explained via anything that even remotely resembles simple competition. It is a much better fit for something that I like to call- maliciousness for its own sake.
Many readers might have, by now, recognized a common thread running through all the above-mentioned examples of human behavior. They all clearly a demonstrate a deep-seated and widespread human tendency to be deceitful, cruel, abusive and murderous for reasons that have almost nothing to with material or monetary gain. It is as if most human beings are actively driven a unscratchable itch to hurt, abuse, enslave and kill others even if they stand to gain very little from it. Human beings as a species will spend their own time, effort and resources to hurt other living creatures just for the joy of doing so.
But why is any of this important? Haven’t human beings being like this for thousands of years? Well.. the simple answer is technology. Previously this particular human tendency was completely contained by technological limitations. People with pre-industrial and early-industrial age technology simply could not do much damage beyond their immediate vicinity. Even large-scale wars, genocides and conquests were moderated by the hard technological limitations. But that is no longer so.. and the (recognized or unrecognized) ability to fuck up the world of humans is real. I also believe that such an event is far more likely to occur as a series of unintentional coincidences, and reactions to them, than anything that is deliberately engineered. This behavioral tendency is also going to be the reason why humans (in their current form) will never become a space-faring species. Travelling between stars, you see, requires energy sources and technologies that would would let a single person kill every other human on the planet. You can be very sure that the development of such technology will result in the extinction of human beings before it is used to make a single starship.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
Slim Outdoor Cuties: Jun 11, 2014 – Slim nekkid cuties outdoors.
More Slim Outdoor Cuties: Jun 11, 2014 – More slim nekkid cuties outdoors.
Even More Slim Outdoor Cuties: Jun 11, 2014 – Even more slim nekkid cuties outdoors.
One of the more repeated and rehashed memes on the internet concerning the ability of women to get sex on their terms can be summarized as:
Fat, ugly and plain-looking women can get laid more easily than good-looking men.
While I do not disagree with the general observation expressed in this statement, one of its not-so-obvious aspect deserves more attention.
Do the men having sex with such women actually enjoy it?
I can almost hear many of the readers say.. “but, but why would men have sex with women if they did not enjoy it?”. This statement is typically followed by something along the lines of “men will fuck anything” or an attempt to sound sophisticated by saying something about “male hormones and the brain”.
However, a lot of men are aware of the difference between “enjoying having sex” and just “having sex”- even though both ultimately result in an orgasm followed by ejaculation. Let me explain the difference between the two in a bit more detail. I have been with a few escorts when the sex was OK, but did not feel much better than masturbation. I have been with many more escorts where the sex was pretty good and felt substantially better than masturbation, but not quite earth-shaking. And there are those with whom the sex was absolutely incredible, draining and pretty much everything you would expect out of great sex.
But why is distinguishing between “having sex” and “enjoying having sex” important? What difference does it make if the guy is just “having sex” with a woman as opposed to “enjoying having sex with her”. Well.. it comes down to what they really are. In my opinion, and experience, “having sex” is identical to masturbating inside a woman. It feels OK and gets the job done, but it is not especially enjoyable or memorable. In contrast, good to great sex aka “enjoying having sex” feels great to amazing and is very memorable.
But how is any of this related to the question posed in the title of this post?
Well.. it largely comes down to the magnitude of sexual attraction experienced by the guy. Sex with a beautiful, or at least pretty, woman is far more likely to be perceived as good or great than if you did it with a plain (let alone fat or ugly) woman. This does not imply that the woman’s sexual technique or personality don’t matter- because they do and will tilt the playing field. However all things considered, a woman’s sexual attractiveness is still the single biggest factor determining the quality of sex with her. Moreover,beautiful and pretty women usually also have better personalities than fat, ugly or plain-looking women.
So why do men keep on having sex with fat, ugly or plain-looking women if the experience is not much better than masturbation? Well there are a bunch of closely related reasons for it, but it comes down to social conditioning- specifically the type that keeps an exploitative and dysfunctional system alive. Society spends a lot of time telling men that having sex with fat, ugly or plain-looking women is “natural” and superior to masturbation. In reality it is quite unsatisfying, extremely expensive and generally not conducive to the enjoyment of life. Sex with pretty or beautiful women, paid or unpaid, on the other hand is much more enjoyable and vastly superior to masturbation. Of course, the social approval cannot keep on going as we now live in the age of ambient internet porn and social atomization.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
Slim Cuties: Jun 7, 2014 – Slim nekkid cuties in artsy photos.
More Slim Cuties: Jun 7, 2014 – More slim nekkid cuties in artsy photos.
Almost two weeks have passed since the Isla Vista Killings, and it seems that the “popular” views about Elliot Rodger fall into two distinct, but not mutualy exclusive, categories. Some say he was misogynist, an issue which I have previously written about, and then are others who say that he was mentally ill.
But was he mentally ill?
Here is the short version of my answer- Elliot Rodger was not mentally ill, by any honest and rational definition of the concept of mental illness. Some of you might say.. “but how can you be so sure, you are not a medical board certified psychiatrist”. To this my answer is- maybe the problem begins with using medical board certified psychiatrists to diagnose mental illness.
Before we go into that issue- let us first define the concept of illness, as applicable to any type of illness or disease. What do we really mean when we use words like ‘illness’ or ‘disease’? And what does being ‘healthy’ imply? If you think hard enough about it, ‘health’ or ‘illness’ are about optimal functioning of one of more organ systems in the body. They are about how all parts of the body are behaving, not what caused that condition. Let me explain that point a bit further, since it has relevance to the Elliot Roger saga.
Accidentally burning yourself while cooking or breaking a bone while playing sports is not a disease or illness- even though the result of those physical insults can be treated as such. Similarly you can get a fever in response to some viral infection, bacterial infection or even a non-infectious cause such as some types of lymphomas. On the other hand, even a so-called ‘natural’ phenomena like growing old (senescence) can be classified as a disease, rather than something that is actually natural like growing up (maturation). My point is that diseases and illness are best defined as a fairly continuous, if sometimes slow, self-sustained downward spiral of organ and body function.
But what is the relevance of any of this to defining mental illness or diseases. Well.. it has to so with what can be considered a mental illness and what cannot. For example- hearing disembodied voices that tell you to kill others or consistently experiencing visual hallucinations is not compatible with normal brain function. Nor is obsessive compulsive behavior that the person implicitly recognizes as irrational. On the other hand- feeling very sad after the death of your child or being depressed in the aftermath of a large adverse life event or after being diagnosed with a terminal illness is, for the lack of a better term, normal or physiological. Similarly being sexually attracted to others of your own sex (homosexuality) is not a mental illness- even though it was considered as such by psychiatry until the 1970s.
When we start talking about Elliot Rodger and mental illness, it is necessary to first determine if his worldview was grounded in measurable reality and whether his shyness was a response to that reality.
Based on his manifesto and YouTube videos, it is clear that Elliot saw himself as a victim of the circumstances of his birth. To be more precise, he thought that his social life would have much better if he was white and had richer parents. I , for one, think that he was absolutely correct about both those factors. It does not take a genius to figure out being a white male (as opposed to a half-asian one) and/or being richer in the very affluent parts of coastal south California would have made him far more socially acceptable and desirable. Heck, even being a black or hispanic male is better than being an asian or half-asian male in SoCal- as far as social desirability is concerned. Now this is almost totally about popular perception rather than objective reality, but people (including girls) make their decisions based on popular perceptions- not objective reality. His assessment of his situation, and predicament, was therefore quite accurate.
Elliot also wrote a lot about being ignored, bullied and put down as a kid- both in school and at home. His behavioral problems started after his still married parents moved to California and got divorced within a couple of years. It is also important to note that the peculiar post-divorce custodial arrangements, his father’s remarriage, his father’s busy schedule, his stepmother’s contempt and his mother losing interest in him after the divorce were not conducive to feeling loved, wanted or secure. While his parents did make sure that he had a financially comfortable lifestyle and upbringing- it is clear that they had both abandoned him. The bully-based culture of the american school system did not make things any better and may have directly contributed to his extreme shyness and aversion towards interacting with new people. In other words, his insecurity and shyness were largely a rational response to his experiences, surroundings and condition.
Similarly, neither his manifesto or YouTube videos show any sign of irrational thinking or grandiose expectations. His manifesto in particular is very well written, factually accurate and accurately captures what he was feeling. Nor were the expectations or desires expressed in it or the videos odd. It seems that he wanted one, or at the most a few serial girlfriends, who were pretty and loved him. He was not asking for sex with hundreds or thousands of women, nor did he see himself as a guy who could get all the pussy he wanted. His wants and desires were, if anything, pretty standard for a guy in his age-group.
Now some of you might say- “but, but.. didn’t the doctor prescribe him some anti-psychotic drug which he did not take”. Well.. if you use that logic, then you also have to believe that all those anti-depressants prescribed to people with mild reactive depression, Ritalin to boys with “ADHD”, and anti-psychotics prescribed to people with PTSD and atypical depression-like symptoms are based in evidence-based medicine. Here is a hint- they are not! It is about physicians trying to show that they are doing something- even if that something is useless or actively harmful.
In my opinion, blaming Elliot Roger’s murder spree on misogyny or mental illness are excuses for people to avoid talking about the real social issues that led him to do what he ultimately did. In an earlier era, we would have blamed his actions on witchcraft, wizardry or devil worship.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
Nude Cuties: Jun 3, 2014 – Nude and slim amateur cuties at the beach.
Tanning Booties: Jun 3, 2014 – Cheeky amateur cuties tanning their behinds.
Beach Cuties: Jun 3, 2014 – Topless and slim amateur cuties at the beach.
While there is a lot I want to write about the Elliot Rodger saga, time constraints require me prioritize some posts over others. So let us talk about one of the most common talking points of media feminists and their male supporters. I am sure almost all of you have come across one or more tweet, post or article that makes the following assertion.
Society did not owe Elliot Rodger anything, including opportunities for sex with women.
If this statement by so-called “liberal” feminists seems familiar, that is because it a rehash of one of the oldest CONservative tropes aka “Society does not owe the individual anything”. Often invoked to cover over glaring faults, systemic defects and outright dishonesty- it relies on shaming naive people into accepting their exploitation as normal. Of course, the low fertility rates (less new naive suckers) and the spread of information (especially the internet) has made this trope far less effective in the last few decades. This change has however not stopped people from trying to use it. Indeed, those who know of no other argument to justify their bullshit often tend to double down on the old one when they are challenged.
And all of this brings us to an interesting question about the dynamics of groups made up of sentient individuals. These groups, unlike those of insects or fish, are by no means inevitable. Infact, a quick look at human history and pre-history suggests that the kinds of large impersonal societies most of us live in today are the exception, rather than the rule. In a previous post, I had made the point that all groups made up of sentient individuals require a certain set of basic conditions to work over an extended period of time. All these basic conditions can be roughly summarized by one word- reciprocity.
A society that demands a lot from individuals without fulfilling its end of the bargain, both the explicit and implicit parts, become dysfunctional and fragile- especially if it cannot find more suckers to replace the ones burnt out by believing those lies and misrepresentations.
So how does that play out in the Elliot Rodger saga? Well, most societies make one peculiar, but often ignored, implicit bargain with its male individual members. It can be summarized as- “doing x,y and z or having a, b and c will almost certainly ensure you sexual access to a non-ugly woman”. Note that this almost always an implicit bargain and not an absolute guarantee. However it is fair to say that it is meant to be true for the vast majority of its male membership.
So what happens if circumstances, or large-scale social changes, make these implicit promises untrue for anything beyond a small minority of its male membership?
The short answer is that you get people like Elliot Rodger. The somewhat longer answer to that question as follows.. A number of large scale social changes such as women working outside the house, easily available oral contraception, social atomization etc has short-circuited many of the “traditional” ways for most men to appear as viable mates to most women. Now, this does not mean that women have lost interest in men. Indeed, the more desirable men have no problems getting tons of women to have sex with them.
These changes have however made many of the older “do x,y, z or have a, b, c to get women” either irrelevant or an afterthought. Society, at large, has however not been honest about these changes and still keeps trying the old stuff. While younger men are increasingly aware of the nature and extent of this gap between reality and official talking points, it fair to say that a significant minority of them have not gotten the message. Moreover, many of those who realize the nature and extent of this deception lose faith in the ability of society to make good on any of its other promises- explicit and implicit.
So while it is technically correct that society or women did not owe Elliot Rodger sex, it is also technically correct that he did NOT have to keep on playing by their rules. Functional contracts, you see, are a two-way street.
What do you think? Comments?