Hi. I write a lot. Mostly corny literotica, but occasionally I turn into an armchair philosopher...

Hi. I write a lot. Mostly corny literotica, but occasionally I turn into an armchair philosopher. Here is some shit I wrote tonight. Tell me what you think of A) my writing and B) my points.
If you disagree with any of it, please cogently explain why.
Any purely pejorative or dismissive responses will be ignored forthwith. Also I will be posting hot bitches, and encourage the same. Anyway:

On the role of the human sex drive in shaping our various societies, with emphasis on traditional gender roles and occupations:

Submissive women are naturally attractive, and attractive women are more naturally submissive. One begets the other.

Women who know they can influence powerful men by acting essentially as attractive sexual trophies and later on good housewives who defer to the authority of the men in their lives are more successful reproductively, and thus make up a larger proportion of the population in parts of the world where political and household authority is held more firmly by men. Attractive women are more frequent in places like Eastern Europe, Russia, and parts of Latin America like Venezuela and Colombia where men hold most of the power. In these parts of the world there are no blue haired social justice warriors angry about how hard life is because they're ugly, because the majority of these genes were bred out a long time ago, and the ugly women who remain know their places because there are consequences to disturbing the status quo. This, in more conservative, power-oriented societies, all other things equal, women will be more attractive, and in more diverse, egalitarian, politically correct societies like the US, women will be uglier on the whole.

Other urls found in this thread:

bla.st/l8r3f
twitter.com/AnonBabble

There's no doubt that societies that are structured like this produce much more attractive women. The proof is in the pudding. There is one pretty terrible downside to it though: female infidelity. In societies wherein authoritarian, patriarchal power is held at a premium, women are conditioned to seek it out in a partner from a very young age. Thus on a statistical level, the concept of marital fidelity is usually going to come second to a woman's desire to make herself sexually available to whatever man is most in charge, regardless of whether that man is her husband. You work for a company in Venezuela, and have 20 employees under your direction. Your company is acquired by a larger company, and it's boss is now your boss. Your new boss, as bosses often do, takes an opportunity to demonstrate his newfound authority over you, when the woman in your life happens to be present. On a statistical level, ceteris paribus, that woman is going to be more likely to be unfaithful and sleep with the man's boss, because she is more attuned to and attracted to authority figures, whereas in a more egalitarian society she might be more inclined to resent his authority and side with her man. It is a strange example, but I believe that it would hold true on a large-scale, statistical level. Could be applied to her workplace, governmental institutions, the military, sports and entertainment, etc.

Every ounce of who and what we are as human beings, from an evolutionary perspective, is based in competition. Cold, heartless competition for which man gets to blow his load in which woman's vagina. That's it. Those 15-20 minutes of sex plus 9 months of pregnancy lie the only avenue that exists to improve humankind on a long-term basis. We are terrible at thinking about our advantages and flaws from this perspective, because it has nothing to do with improving our own lives as individuals, and until we have kids (ironically) that is all that any of us as humans give a single fuck about.

A society in which men compete for power and resources and women pick and choose which men are worthy of having children is how mankind has been structured since before we stood up on 2 legs. It makes for a less-than-ideal quality of life, but the trade-off is that less-than-fit individuals are excluded from the gene pool and the species is improved as a whole. A beautiful, intelligent woman marries a kind-hearted school teacher whom she has known since childhood. She loves her husband but is never fully satisfied by him physically. At a cocktail party she meets a dynamic, well-spoken businessman who is a former college athlete. He makes his desire known for her, and they fuck on the marble countertop in the bathroom. Nine months later, she gives birth to his child, her husband none the wiser. They go on to have 1 other child, and the business men has 2 with his wife and two more by other mistresses. Maybe his marriage dissolves, maybe he's stuck paying child support for the two out of wedlock, but the end result is undeniable: 5 of his kids, to one of the school teacher's. Over time, this inequity of the attractive and resourceful reproducing and those who are not being passed over holds true, with infidelity by both sexes, but more often women, acting as the catalyst.

It's important to realize that things like emotions and free will are constructed entirely within the confines of our most powerful biological urge, and that is procreation. The emotions that we feel, the things that we desire in life, the things that we get up and do every day, whether we realize it or not, are all driven by the unconscious desire to have babies, and in the case of men to have babies with a veritable shit ton of different women and to possess reproductive control over them.

The pang of emotion, the jealousy you feel when you see the woman in your life merely flirting with another man? The type that you have to suppress in that moment, or you'll look like a total asshole. That is your DNA screaming at you from 1.2 million years in the past to put a stop to the interaction before she decides she likes him, and he gets her pregnant before you do. I could give other examples, but I only have 2000 characters.

bump for interest

Shit, even our petty interests and choices of entertainment are influenced by our desire to exist in an environment conducive to sex. Think about the two most popular American sitcoms of all time, Friends and Seinfeld. What do they have in common? Common character archetypes and relations? No. Same brand of humor? Nope. Similar plot lines? Fuck no. Nothing important ever happens in either show. So what is it? The answer is sex and dating. On Friends, typically more than but at least one of the characters is dating and fucking someone new every week, without fail. With the Seinfeld characters, it's even worse. Elaine had romantic 56 partners over the course of the series. Jerry and George's numbers are even higher. Kramer’s is lower but still ranges in the 30’s. It’s because that's what people are inexorably and consistently interested in. That's what keeps them coming back.

Morality as we ourselves define it is absolutely a human construct created to counteract the heartlessness and evil that inevitably comes from following your dick/vagina everywhere it leads you. If homo erectus wanted to fuck another man's cave dwelling female companion, the easiest, most direct path to that would be to sneak up behind the guy, club him over the head, and rape his partner until she was pregnant with his kid. The problem with this is that is leads to retribution from his friends and kin, which leads to more retribution, which compounds until you eventually have full-on tribal warfare and everybody killing each other because one lonesome numbskull wanted to blow his wad in the wrong place. Seriously, I'm not positive Hitler didn't just have a fetish for chicks with blonde hair and blue eyes. Morality is a construct, ambiguous at best, created to keep us from fucking and killing until only the strongest were left. The question at hand though, is whether we’ve taken our commitment to morality, kindness, civility too far, and whether or not adhering to our “morality” makes us existentially happier.

In general the problem with making arguments based on broad statements whose various truths are rooted in statistics is that people tend to assume things about your personal experience. Their also tend to view them through the prism of their own personal experience too, and get angry when they dont match that. For instance, if I were to say to you, statistically black Americans commit violent crime at much higher rates than other ethnic groups, a sensible but unreasonable person might respond with outrage. "Well I have plenty of black friends and none of them are violent criminals..." That's great and I'm happy for you, but that isn't what I said. You would be taking my meaning as saying "all or most black people are criminals", which I didn’t say.

You assume that these views that I hold arise from cynicism stemming for negative past experiences with women, which while I've had a couple, is not the case in general. This mode of thinking is perilous to intellectual discourse, because when combined with anger usually results in character assassinations, i.e.; if I make a general statement about a particular group of people that, while rooted in logic and statistics, is not a positive reflection on that group, then I must be a racist. Studies have shown that character assassinations and attacking an opponent's credibility are more effective in an argument than proactively presenting facts. If you undermine someone's credibility by calling them a racist or sexist or bigot, then every subsequent point they make becomes invalid and you don't have to address them. It's anti-intellectualism at best, and bullying/mob-mentality at worst. A slippery slope, and one to avoid for the sake of decent discussion and argumentation.

That's the end of it.

...

Bump

Yeah, sounds good.

What is your point?

I suppose my overall point is that sex and the unconscious desire to reproduce is far and away the most powerful force driving our individual behaviors, and via those behaviors, how we structure our societies as a whole. In an effort to paint ourselves as "evolved" and "civilized", we sometimes attempt to write this powerful and ever-present drive out of the human narrative, often to our own severe detriment.

Thanks bro.

better than any dating site! plenty of horny sluts of your city on bla.st/l8r3f

We, as a species of technologically informed/empowered individuals, are putting our base opinions ahead of our drive for truth and information over knee-jerk emotions rooted in our psyches for our past genetic upbringing(?)...

We give in too easily to mob mentality in order to belong to what one perceives as the 'winning' side to establish our selves as smart, capable and a good match for any potential mate who might be looking at us.

It makes us false people, seemingly going backwards in our evolution and progress to toward the future.

Well that was a lot of work. I'm damn sure not gonna let it 404, so I'm just gonna post deez hoes until someone says something smart in response.

I pretty much knew everything you were going to say based on the first sentence. Reading the rest just confirmed it.

Keep your update on....

There is nothing untrue about what you've just said. But at the same time, how can you consider yourself informed enough to truly understand what the correct mix of base desires and learned enlightenment is to keep us happy on a guttural level?

Shit how can you even presume to call these desires primitive and base when not just you, but every single one of us, is subject to them ways both understood and completely mysterious? I mean, what is the one thing that every single human on this planet has in common, other than 99.999% of our physical contruction? It's that every person on this planet, every single one of their ancestors who ever lived wanted to have children, either consciously or subconsciously, badly enough that they actually went through with it. Don't you think it's a bit arrogant that we can, with a single lifetime, simply sidestep that fact and live happy and fulfilled lives without engaging that underlying desire?
Just something to think about.

Bumping

OP I'll go with each post

Won't say you're wrong about beautiful women going for powerful or as beautiful men. It's simple laws of attraction, people are drawn towards their desires i.e for women it would be a "powerful male" a.k.a "alpha male", and for males it's a beautiful female to satisfy male's primal urges to mate and dominate. Which is where I'll say "Women who know they can influence powerful men by acting essentially as attractive sexual trophies" is wrong males have a built in sense to dominate so as always man are having the beautiful women as trophies not the other way around

If you formed a conclusion based on only the first sentence of what I wrote, and then that conclusion was verified as totally accurate upon reading the rest of what I wrote, and I can assume that you consider your own thought processes measured and logical, then I can safely assume that you consider what I wrote to be logically sound. In which case I say: thank you.

...

...

Not to say there is not "powerful women" but those women typically don't need a male to support them instead have boy toys those women aren't necessarily ugly but I won't lie and say they're pretty typically old bags.

Op sounds 8 days away from an elliot rodgers type massacre. Do yourself a favor op, stop being a fedora tipping neck beard who writes shit tier 50 shades rip offs constantly pouring his heart out to Sup Forums about how theres so many factors beyond his control that MAKE him repulsive to women instead of taking a critical look at yourself,making a few changes and maybe getting a girl

I'm not too clear on what you mean in the last minute. I'm asserting that the fact that men have the undeniable urge to pursue and attain attractive women is part of what gives women influence over men.

better than any dating site! a lot of horny beautiful sluts of your city on bla.st/l8r3f

...

...

But OP can't the same be said about women alike, for the fact some women crave for a man as well. And this is not the case of women craving the "D". just as "powerful male" are attracted to beautiful women all the same point can be pointed back to powerful women can crave beautiful men.

Make a fetlife account and post this on there. It would draw good discussion.

Well, I think you are considering "happiness" though the prismatic lens of your own experience.

I myself am very happy going to work everyday and being a cog in the big machine of america. For instance, I'm a construction worker, Union, and my family has been working metal for many generations (I have that as pure fact, I'm first born. Swedish,established written lineage back to Eric the Red, all firstborn sons have been metal workers of some type, so it just makes sense to me. I can honestly say, I hear it in my blood.)

As a worker, I have the somewhat unique(if not, then rare) understanding of my place in the world. I have to work, its what gives me purpose. I've always had an underlying drive for purpose, even as a little kid. I had two years of college, quit and went into the trades. I had a feeling the college was not going to get me what I wanted out of life. That is a very odd choice for a kid who hasn't had a place in the world directed to me. I choose this path out of the static of emotional genetic precursors I have in my blood. Its what I was meant to do with my life. People in my Gene-line have very high comprehension levels, it makes us very good at problem solving. It also makes us smart enough to separate emotion from reason.

So, I would say the only thing I haven't done yet,(that makes me not happy) is to have sired a son, to take my place in the grinder of the american way of life. If I don't have a son in the next few years, I will have missed my chance at continuing my line and passing my intelligence on to another generation to use on the worlds behalf.

Sauce on girls?

You writing is shit by the way.

I mean, we're in agreeance about the first part. The difference in how men and women pursue each other lies in the fundamental difference in how we've approached sex for millions of years.

Men produce a lot of sperm. The can use that sperm on a lot of women, so they have an incentive to sleep with a lot of women without having to be too picky about who gets it. Women on the other hand, lets say the average woman's reproductive life spans from 15 to 40. That's 25 years times 12 months in a year, making a maximum of 300 times she can conceivably get pregnant. I personally have blown more loads than that that total in almost every individual year of my life. My point is this: because of these biological differences, men want to fuck every woman over a certain level of attractiveness, but the same cannot be said for women. It is in their nature to be more sexually selective.

So you're refuting my point and supporting it at the same time?

Im not asserting that I believe there is some magical, universally-applicable formula for happiness. What I am saying is that if A) we don't fully understand the extent of influence our unconscious desire to procreate has on us in our day-to-day lives, and B) we do know the one and only thing we all have in common is the presence mechanisms to support this drive, then how can we possibly claim to know whether we will be happier or unhappier, more or less fulfilled by not having kids without having actually done it?

Maybe a person thinks they don't want to have children as a matter of convenience or pragmatism, but if everyone you ever descended from ended up having kids at some point in your life, how can you determine what is the right choice for you?

Presence of mechanisms in our DNA*

I can call these desire primitive, because, though the lens of reason, they are.
One (and all) cannot continually put themselves ahead of the line in every situation, no one will win all the time. If they are, its only one person. How can we go forward without building on the successes of the previous generation?
Henry Ford build an automotive empire, not by fucking, but by hard analysis of what he saw going on. He thought about things in different ways that precluded the emotions of others, He is the great grandfather of modern automation. It didn't matter to him that a stupid human might get tired of putting in screw #47 day in a day out. All that mattered is that the part was finished and moved on to complete the whole. Black people cant do that, they can't think progressively and linearly to accomplish simple tasks of farming on regular basis, look at zimbabwe, those people are dying. They are genetically unable to progress to more complicated states of the future. How can we help them, and should we?
I believe as we "grow-up" these differing states of emotion and logic will align in a beneficial pattern that can keep us going into the future. The speed of that progress will forever be retarded as long as let emotion cloud our reason.

Bumped

Certainly, the point of the idea you've presented has no specific answer in the grossest sense.
Its entirely up to the individual, because of the mechanisms in our DNA. I have no desire to accrue any type of monetary wealth, it has no inherent value to me. A tool is far more useful, and thus valuable, than the unit of currency that determines its value. I believe that very idea is what sets workers apart from managers. America has huge amounts of managers in its economy, but fewer and fewer workers producing product that has innate value.
But, people I see, continually flail blindly though life, taking whatever meaningless job they can that seemingly entails the least amount of work. They have no idea of the whole they are contributing to because it is shrouded in ambigeousness and shit all over by the mediocrity of others, less invested in the whole than they are. They don't see the final product of what they have accomplished because the reciprocal impact on their life is so small.

I don't mean it is wrong to call our need to fuck (and underlying subconscious desire to reproduce) "base" or "primitive" in a nominal sense. I mean it is wrong to use them as pejoratives in describing our desires; to lessen their importance and influence on us by referring to them that way.

Henry Ford was a brilliant innovator who saw the potential in his manufacturing process and utilized it effectively to fill a need in the American market. But why? Im sure he genuinely liked building useful machines and changing the American socioeconomic landscape for the better. But what if you took money out of the equation? What if it was legally mandated that, for the greater good of society and mobilization of the workforce, cars had to be offered to the public for free, and there was no money to be made building them, no potential growth of profit? Do you think he would have been bothered to do all of that innovating? Do you think he would have put 50,000 people to work and provided them a livelihood if there were no money to be made? Do you think he would have paid for all of those buildings at the University of Michigan if they didnt put a placard bearing his name on each one?

It sounds silly, because it would be silly for any man to put that much time and effort and that many resources into an endeavor if it did not grant him the one thing that drives all human endeavor: status.

The pursuit of and desire for status, present in every human being, is what drives us to do everything. And the status and notoriety that we derive from our achievements is what gives us reproductive value. Henry Ford married very early, long before he was rich, so on a conscious level, his reproductive success was virtually ensure. But our biology doesn't recognize that. We strive for further achievement constantly, driven by the subconscious desire to continually encounter new sexual partners and mate with them, whether we go through with it or not.

...

Blamp

Also, I believe very strongly in -having kids- to both continue your line and abilities to the future, and keep humanity going as a whole.
That I agree with, Even if the majority, like myself, must be sacrificed to the fires of industry and construction. In this, I have come to believe luck plays a monstrous role in how our lives proceed forward. There are so many variables going on, one individual cannot manage enough of them to firmly go forward without fear.
All it take is a single car accident, one slip off a ladder, or just plain wrong street to walk down that can change your entire future.

Literally everyone knows sex is the basis for every human decision whether they're concious of it or not. Your next challenge is to see how this concept applies to some more abstract situations.

Take for example, men are actually shaped more by women than vice versa. Women control the eggs (more valuable than the sperm) and control who gets access to them. Through the generations women have shaped men to be exactly what they need them to be. Therefore, women cannot complain about men's masculinity as they have bred men specifically to be as they are.

Whoa. That's some pretty heavy shit. Let me mull that over for a minute.

The problem with it lies in the that (as I stated before) the sum of long-term changes in human behavior

better than any dating site! a lot of horny stunning sluts of your city on bla.st/l8r3f

Derp.

...

I.... don't necessarily ascribe to that entirely...

Women don't have any real control over their eggs.... not in the sense that they totally choose the recipient of those eggs. There are greater forces going on, and I believe you are not casting your gaze wide enough...
Sure, a woman is not going to jump into bed with an ugly horribly obese guy that can't see, the high powered executive in a suit is a far better choice.
But what about the middle majority... I believe that the people in the middle have limited opportunities to move up, they can always go down. This is how I bring luck into the situation, and for the vast majority, over a long period of time as well, a couple hundred years.
A woman is always going to stay within the bounds of her social structure, its too embarrassing to move too radically out of bounds to somewhere she doesn't belong. The other women with status will let her know quite readily, and there will be problems. Whether or not the child act has been performed pre or post this hurdle will determine if that child has a chance to go forward in terms of better resources, if not plain better genetics. So, I stipulate there is a serious amount of luck going on(in both directions, good and bad) to say women have any control and passing that on either to men or the children who grow up into those men and women.

betafag as fuck. Women and men have co-evolved social behaviors. We're not their slaves. We do work, they make tiny faggots like you. Without each other we'd die out.

better than any dating site! a lot of horny beautiful sluts of your city on bla.st/l8r3f

No, I dont think you're right about that. It seems correct at face value because, well I'm a man, and I know what it feels like to have to shape my life around the desires of women if I want to be with them.

But the fact is, it takes exactly one man and oen woman to make a new human, and of course new humans represent the sum of all changes to humanity. The things that women need from men are just important as the things that men require of women when consensual sex is occurring.

And more to the point, which group would you is more common? Men who have children by more than one woman, or women who have children by more than one man? In the ghetto and lower income communities, the answer is definitely women but men born in those circumstances definitely do not go on to influence society much. On the other end of the spectrum, high income groups and even I would argue in the middle class, the opposite is definitely true. Rich businessmen, doctors, lawyers definitely more frequently are the ones sowing their oats among women they're not married to. Historically, before the advent of birth control and abortions, that was definitely true. In the animal kingdom, that's pretty much the only way it works. High status males have their pick of the females, whichmore often than not means all of the females.

Im not saying one influences the other more. Im just saying it balances out because the ratio of partners is never not 1:1.

>bla.st/l8r3f

lmao not sure if bot or trolling

either way 8/8

>they make tiny faggots like you
kek'd

Forgot add that also implies that sex resulting procreation is necessarily consensual.
In scenarios where a child is born of rape, the man's desires and requirements of the female are the only thing dictating the course of the interaction.

This partially explains why women lubricate during rape, and why so many are aroused by the idea.

That's why you're supposed to type "sage" into all fields for long posts and bump posts, retard.

...

You must really think Im retarded.

Bumpin

Indeed

...

You know what those numbers at the bottom of the thread mean?

They mean you're a sameposting faggot.

KYSF

NO U

No you

At least im not a samefagging Postit®

Lure pussy... trolling through the ocean of dicks. Been under the knife to attract more cock.. "why get a job with good pay so I can get that sweet merc when I can just put on these yoga pants and flash my ass?!" Then the drainage of the wallet begins.. because she pretty and shouldn't have to work that ass off.. Butterfaces is the shit.

Have you ever been with a woman that physically attractive?