Don't Become This Guy

Post Reply New Topic

I was referring mostly to Cho's shooting. I haven't read much about this new killer.



Not necessarily. Cruelty is a complex notion and doesn't always reduce to the action of one individual or group. If you push someone and another ducks behind him, is it cruel to duck behind someone when no one's there to do the pushing?

In a similar way, romantic rejection might only become cruel when coupled with other actions, such as bullying and cultural stigma.



Thereby putting any children we might have in danger of serious illness including, but not limited to, full-blown autism.



I'm one of the few people who has even been brave enough to admit that sexual selection poses a serious problem for humanity. I'm still waiting for others.

And I'm not asking that everyone receive a boyfriend or girlfriend -- it would be a straw man fallacy to accuse me of that. I just think we should find some way to alleviate the suffering of the less attractive. Using Christian lies to turn them into automatons of free labor doesn't seem to do that very well, nor does keeping them alive for ridicule or schadenfreude giggles.

I must say, while I think humanity has advanced very far and has made good political progress, we still remain in a primitive, predatorial state that has yet to be overcome.

Mike, I understand your point here, clearly. I think that there are people who are strong enough to withstand it and get on with life without causing any trouble, while they suffer psychologially and in silence. Others just complain or do what Sodini did.

How does sexual selection pose a serious problem for humanity? Humanity is riddled with problems: shortsightedness that is leading to ecological disaster, a scary capacity for violence, a clannishness that leads to bullying on a small scale and war on a large scale. But sexual selection being among those problems? How can that be?


It all depends on what precisely you mean by "the suffering of the less attractive". If you mean bullying on the playground that happens to the odd looking kid then I am all in favor of the strong anti-bullying policies that many schools have recently adopted. If you mean workplace discrimination, I remember some lawsuits about just this thing but they didn't win in court because it is very hard to prove that the reason you were passed over for a promotion was because the other candidate was better looking. And looks aren't a protected anti-discrimination category as race and gender are. Maybe making them protected is a goal you think we should work towards and maybe it is in all fields that have no reason to be looks-dependent. The catch is, it's very hard to prove that 1)there is objective criteria for who is better looking that will hold up in court and 2)a given job isn't looks-dependent (unless it is literally behind the scenes). It was women suing against looksism, for the record. If you meant something else, then...what else?

Who are these automatons of free labor you speak of? There is slavery in parts of the world, but from what I've read the slaves are people who were captured from villages in raiding parties, and in those situations, being good looking is actually a severe liability. Other slaves were arrested on trumped-up charges in dictatorships and are now doing slave labor in work camp jails. But what does any of that have to do with looks?

And "keeping them alive for ridicule or schadenfrude giggles"???? What are you referring to here? The way people with deforming birth defects were treated in the past? The "freak shows" of long-ago circuses are something we should definately learn from and NEVER repeat. But as far as I can see, we don't. The "freak shows" that travelled with Lollapalooza in the 90's were full of people who had deliberately made themselves odd looking with piercings and tattoos or had freakish skills they had cultivated. And that doesn't fit your argument.I must say, while I think humanity has advanced very far and has made good political progress, we still remain in a primitive, predatorial state that has yet to be overcome.[/quote]

I agree with that. But I think you're barking up the wrong tree about what's wrong with us.


(edited to add: I keep screwing up the quotes but it just gets weirder and messier every time I try to fix it. Hope it's still decipherable)

The problem is serious due to the degree of suffering it can cause. Based on my experiences as a student of sexual selection without a girlfriend -- nightmares, hallucinations, retching -- I have come to fearfully suspect that some people out there just might not be able to stand it.

I completely agree about anti-bullying policies. It would be nice if we could work to create more compassion in schools.



People who toil their whole lives in hope of the eventual 'Heavenly reward' that Christianity promises for them, but does not give.



On the contrary, I think that once we get this resolved, we'll make a huge step forward.

Ok, I'll make an assumption. You haven't been selected and it makes you miserable. Many people who haven't been selected are miserable. Therefore it's a source of misery. You have made a good case that it is a source of misery.

Now think through possible solutions. Humanity has so far come up with two major approaches to getting around the evolutionary biology fact that in the wild (in other species and before humans settled down into "civilization") females make the mate choice.

1)Prostitution. Not for nothing is the World's Oldest Profession so entrenched. Wherever there are men who were not "selected", there will be women willing to have sex for money. Of course many, many customers were "selected" already and just want dabble in something bad without sullying their wives (the madonna/whore thing). I would actually like to see prostitution legalized. I think that, like drugs, it will always be with us because there will always be a market and the worst problems it causes are a side effect of its illegality.

2)Clampdown sexism. Up until some time in the 60's, that was the international solution. Men just took away women's option to choose a man that they (reportedly) had back in neolithic times (hard to tell, it's just a guess that neolithic women could do this). With feminism and a woman's ability to both control her own reproduction, hold her own job, and choose her own mate, sexual selection came back to being the female's choice as it had been in neolithic times (they say) and is elsewhere in the animal kingdom. Of course there are many countries where this doesn't hold and women have no say in who they mate with. But I'll assume you aren't in one of those countries or you wouldn't be making this post. LePetitPrince has written often and well on this subject too. Evolutionary biology is back once clampdown sexism got the boot.

I think you've read enough posts from me by now to figure where I stand on the subject of clampdown sexism. If you want to return to those golden days when women had no say, well...I won't even bother to post what you know I want to post.

If you have some 3rd solution...what is it?

Throughout this and other threads I've made a 3rd solution suggestion of my own. I suppose I'll repeat it just for completeness. Sexual selection works both ways. Evolutionary biology made women the selectors as keepers of the eggs which are not nearly as plentiful as sperm and therefore need to be guarded more carefully. And that 9 month incubation period and 18 year raising period means women have to be mighty picky, evolutionary biology-wise. But there are plenty of women whose eggs just aren't seen as worthy of competing over as others. Everybody wants to get Angelina Jolie pregnant. Only Brad Pitt actually gets to. She can be just aboout as picky as she wants to be since, by the tenets of evolutionary biology, her eggs are more valuable since she is hot and hot, in evolutionary biology terms, means "great DNA". So one option, which I've blathered on about at length, is to go for the women whose eggs have the DNA that men are less likely to compete for. They get a little deperate that their DNA is going nowhere fast. Yup. The not-hot. That is the "out" that many men have arrived at. To be perfectly honest, it's the "out" that a lot of men arrived at in Clampdown Sexism times too. After all, when the sultan scoops up every hot woman within a 50 mile radius to be in his harem, the remaining beta males have little choice but to pair up with the remaining beta females.

That will help for people looking just for sex. But there is also an emotional need that people need. I have been rejected most of my life. If I want I can go out and get an escort for the night. This still does not fullfill my need for a real connection.

No. A prostitute certainly wouldn't. But a not-hot woman certainly could. One who has been rejected/not selected many times herself.

Yes, KenM, I feel the same way. I know I could find a prostitute, but I wouldn't receive the same adoration as I would in an intimate relationship.

In response to Janissy, I'm not sure that lowering standards is the best solution. Our goal is to find a happy lifestyle, if any, and for a relationship we might turn down a 'less attractive' person for the same reason you would.

In a way, it's aggravating that we're forced to play this little game of rejection with our fellow human beings. If it were up to me, we'd all receive the sweet, tender thrills of romantic love...

Havn't read the essay, but both men and women suffer from unexplained lack of companionship because of things that are ingraned in our "primal", "animal" or "sin nature" self. Sex is a "primal" urge, and we want to mate on a primal level with someone (or anyone) that will sire strong offspring and make up for our own genetic weaknesses. This is not a concious decision. I have often picked up nonverbal cues from women who were not exactly the "high-IQ" types. I never persued this, but they were probably interested in me because, on a sub-concious level, something indicated that my genitics could make up for a percieved weekness (lack of IQ).

I think many Auspies become infatuated with socialy outword women, because of a "primal" indicator these women will make up for percieved genitic weakness in ourselves. This is a nightmare path guys. Domestic humans seem nice, but they will turn on you because they you are feral. Leave the domestic humans to themselves.

Aspies lonelyness is 50% lack of social skills, 50% stuborness and unwillingness to learn things that are not natural and don't make sense to us.

But that doesn't explain why I would give up so much for the companionship, but couldn't care less about the sex... if it were a primal biological force at work, I would be seeking the sex far more than just the companionship...


The whole domestic/feral psychology concept makes about as much sense as the whole "alpha male" concept... I have a simpler explanation: socially outward women will actually make it clear to us that they like us, while other women stick to BS body language that zips over our heads... therefore, we can actually know that someone likes us...

I put a lot of labels on things so I can stop sitting around confused an move on. The Feral/Domestic human is, on one level, completely rediculous, just like the Alpha male concept. But I have heard the same thing about Aspieness.

You have made your (sexual) selection. Your selection is not available. So instead of making a different selection you stand there yelling at the vending machine for being unfair.

Look, Janissy, I'm going to be very blunt and tell you that you are strawmanning me. I've told you twice already that I'm not scapegoating women for the suffering of less attractive men. So instead of insulting me, why don't you read my posts more carefully?

I have feelings, you know.

I'm sorry I came down on you snappishly. I don't think you are scapegoating women. I just think you are unecessarily limiting yourself and this limitation extends your suffering. I can't wrap my head around it. But I suppose not being able to wrap my head around it is my own limitation.

I think I've found my twin bro.

This guy IMHO was simply an entitled creep, AS or not (likley not).

I agree with much of what you say. But not this.

A couple of questions for you: "How are the loved ones of those who died feeling right now?" and then "Are they the cause of their own misery?"

If what you say is true, we can all do what we like and never bother considering others as "they and they alone are the cause of their own misery". It seems obvious to me that misery can be caused by circumstances outside of your control.

Your statement has other problems. Presumably you mean "an inability to perceive something correctly"? i.e. the same as everyone else. How can you hold a person responsible for how their physical form 'perceives' "? Surely our perceptions are part of out genetic inheritence. For many of us, negative and counter-productive behaviours are forced into us throughout our formative years. How can anyone - short of sainthood - transcend all that? Wouldn't it be better to just stop the ridiculous stresses of our cultural conditioning. Maybe we could reverse the trend for happiness levels to be continually falling, too.



Which society? There are many quite different ones on earth right now (despite the increasing domination of the western way). There were even more in the past few thousand years VERY different to what you call the one "society". How can they all be reflecting the same human nature? Unless human nature differs depending on how your society forms you How could a person ever feel rejected at being single in a society that arranges marriages for everyone?

Those nature programs are biased media constructions to condition us to believe that our current conditions are 'natural'. Other species, in their natural state, free from the tinkering of domesticated humans, do not murder each other at anywhere near the rate humans do. We are the leading species at murder, war and genocide AND we are the most 'civilised'. The connection is obvious.

Do you not think that if human's *are* the peak of evolution on earth, we shouldn't strive to organise our societies somewhat better than meerkats and monkeys?

The only way to understand our nature is to get away from civilisation. Not watching 'nature' programs designed to 'program' us into accepting the injustice of our current economic and social systems as somehow 'natural'.