Would Women Stop Tending to be Submissive Outside Capitalism?

[Major K.]

I have a bit of an unusual question to pose to y'all.

I'm writing an essay about submissiveness in women (submissiveness being putting the interests of someone or something else before your own, without even necessarily thinking about it).

My argument is, to put it simply, that women have a vested interest in submitting to men (at the very least during sex) because of their reproductive role in the species and subsequently with what men find sexually attractive (Conversely, women are attracted to dominant men to the degree that they are submissive women -- or we could say, regularly assume a submissive frame of mind).

A woman who is completely unwilling to submit to a man is sexually unattractive, because she communicates that she would make an unreliable mother, while a woman who is too submissive is equally unattractive, because she communicates that she may be too weak (or in layman's terms, "boring") to bear viable offspring to begin with. This leaves us with what we have around the globe today: women occupying the space mostly between quite submissive and the neutral mid-point between submissive and dominant. And this distribution makes sense from a survival of the species perspective.

It also makes sense for society to discourage men and women from sleeping around too much, because it threatens the social order (especially if women do it, because they have more to lose from accidentally getting pregnant), but not to discourage it entirely, because it helps promote diversity in the species.

In this context, I've been thinking about submissiveness in women and it's relationship to the inherently exploitative economic system we live in -- aka, capitalism.

In particular, I'm wondering if you guys think communism or anarchism could and would even want to change this sexual polarization; the dichotomy between masculine and feminine social roles (man as sword, woman as vessel).

Also, do you think most women would stop being attracted to dominant men in a communist world order, or do you predict it changing in some other way?

Thanks for your replies!

Major K.

[Sewer Socialist]

I think you would do well to note that the reproductive role extends far beyond sex. In addition to the biological reproduction of new organisms to replace the retired workforce, the daily reproduction of the proletariat is a task assigned to the homemaker. Cooking the food of proletarians, cleaning their resting place, entertaining them after work, sexually pleasuring them, etc. These tasks are inherently submissive.

Which people women are attracted to is not the source of this submission in any way, and I think you are failing to realize that the stereotypes you are reciting are the roles each side is expected to fulfil, rather than an inherent trait. Attraction is far more diverse even today than you give it credit for.

You do have something of a start at this understanding, though. What do women have to lose from unexpected pregnancy? Women in capitalist societies have much more to lose than women in communist societies. Why does insubordination make for an unfit mother? The mother is a position of authority to children, isn't it? Rather, she is unfit for a matrimonial role of submission to the father.

Submission isn't some trait caused by estrogen, or a gene blocked by the Y chromosome, or any other such madness. It is a real response to the social roles impressed upon people. It is reproduced by the way people are forced to live their lives.

Simply looking back at history at what is considered "attractive", and seeing how easily it changes shows that the notion is quite malleable.

In a culture which presents only the option of submission, yes, of course there will be less of it when people are not forced to submit!

[Major K.]

I think you would do well to note that the reproductive role extends far beyond sex. In addition to the biological reproduction of new organisms to replace the retired workforce, the daily reproduction of the proletariat is a task assigned to the homemaker. Cooking the food of proletarians, cleaning their resting place, entertaining them after work, sexually pleasuring them, etc. These tasks are inherently submissive.

Why stop there? We could keep going with the role of reproduction. We could look at each moment as reproduction. Each breath you take as an assertion of life. We could continue and look at reproduction on a cellular level. However, for the concepts we're talking about, let us simply agree that sexual intercourse is a nodal point in the reproduction of humans, and is unique because of the opportunity of variation that coincides with the synthesis of male and female gametes.


Which people women are attracted to is not the source of this submission in any way, and I think you are failing to realize that the stereotypes you are reciting are the roles each side is expected to fulfill, rather than an inherent trait. Attraction is far more diverse even today than you give it credit for.

I agree with you that attraction isn't just a matter of dominance or submission (though that spectrum does seem to play an important role), however, I don't think submission is just forced as you seem to think. I think submission is also, on a deeper level, the dominant way the feminine expresses love.

Think about your mother, for example. How does she demonstrate she loves you? She cooks you food, she calls and asks how you're doing, she helps clean up after you (if you live together)... in other words, she practices daily self-sacrifice.

Your way of looking at things degrades her love by reducing it to her fulfilling a social role that she's been coerced into.

It is true that society has expectations for people and roles you are expected to fulfill. But where do you think those come from? Is sexual polarity to be neutralized in your ideal world then?

Of course, forced demonstration of love like you describe is just like taxes. It's forced charity. But to restate my def: submissiveness is "putting the interests of someone or something else before your own, without even necessarily thinking about it."

Sometimes it's coercive, sometimes it's willing. I'm not here talking about one or the other, but I'd like to emphasize the authenticity of the latter and discourage the former.



You do have something of a start at this understanding, though. What do women have to lose from unexpected pregnancy? Women in capitalist societies have much more to lose than women in communist societies. Why does insubordination make for an unfit mother? The mother is a position of authority to children, isn't it? Rather, she is unfit for a matrimonial role of submission to the father.

For starters, an extremely unyielding woman is less likely to have fit children, because by being that way she is communicating to potential mates that she is unwilling to submit herself to them, and thus potentially unwilling to submit to the demanding needs of child-rearing. This makes her high investment and low returns, which is only a deal desperate men make. Men with options will just move on and find a less frigid mate. I could give you more reasons, but maybe I'll just link my essay and you can get my whole position in its entirety that way.


Submission isn't some trait caused by estrogen, or a gene blocked by the Y chromosome, or any other such madness. It is a real response to the social roles impressed upon people. It is reproduced by the way people are forced to live their lives.

Once again, I think you're taking an unnecessarily negative look at submission. There are some negative aspects, but society relies upon it. It's only negative from a narrow perspective.


Simply looking back at history at what is considered "attractive", and seeing how easily it changes shows that the notion is quite malleable.

The history of what is considered attractive is superficially diverse, but if you look a bit deeper there are some core traits that are universally considered desirable for mates. I'm not talking about appearance level stuff, though symmetry does seem to be consistently important on that level.

Of course, in civilizations where food is scarce, fat is attractive, in civilizations where it's abundant, thin is. But moderate submissiveness, as in motherly and maidenly qualities, for one obvious example, is a universally attractive quality in women as mates. What varies is where a society draws the edges (which is where most discussion about sexuality seem to be focused). Though really, that's just fine tuning it and the maintenance of an up to date balance based on environmental circumstances.


In a culture which presents only the option of submission, yes, of course there will be less of it when people are not forced to submit!

Forcing people to submit is bad. Got it. I imagine that might be the core socialist concern in regards to submission (justifiably). We'll have to wait and see what others on here think though.

Regardless, thanks for taking the time to respond :)

-Major K.

[Quail]

The reason women are submissive is that we're socialised to fill that role pretty much from birth. In our particular society (i.e. a patriarchal capitalist society) it's desirable to program women to be willing to sacrifice their own desires, wants and needs for others so that they won't complain as much about being relegated to the role of babymaking machines and housewives. The work done (predominantly) by women in reproduction (i.e. carrying, giving birth to and bringing up a child), in the home (i.e. housework) and emotionally (i.e. sex, caring and other emotional labour) is entirely necessary to keep capitalism afloat, so it makes sense to socialise women to accept that role.

In a communist society of course, we want to liberate everyone from their gender roles. How can we have a free and equal society if roughly half of the population are socialised to submit to the other half? In practical terms, this means that the forms of work I described above will be more evenly distributed. An unexpected pregnancy in a communist society would be no big deal - if the parent chose not to abort, there would be freely available childcare and support. As opposed to in our current society, where an unplanned baby can leave a parent isolated and alone, and ruin the parent's prospects of doing something they find fulfilling.

In short, YES, of course women would stop being submissive outside of capitalism!

[Quail]

Um, also, why is sex considered "submitting" to someone? That doesn't sound consensual and fun.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Putting someone's desires ahead of your own is not really "submissiveness". For example, if a priest volunteers at a local homeless shelter, is he being "submissive"?

Also, my father has done the things you list as acts of maternal submission (cook me meals, call to see how I'm doing, etc.) I really don't think there's any dominance/submission aspect there.

What I think you're really trying to get at here is "will women still be sexually submissive outside of capitalism?" And I think the answer is yeah, some will, if they're into that kind of thing.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

A woman who is completely unwilling to submit to a man is sexually unattractive, because she communicates that she would make an unreliable mother, while a woman who is too submissive is equally unattractive, because she communicates that she may be too weak (or in layman's terms, "boring") to bear viable offspring to begin with. This leaves us with what we have around the globe today: women occupying the space mostly between quite submissive and the neutral mid-point between submissive and dominant. And this distribution makes sense from a survival of the species perspective.

This is, quite frankly, embarrassing.

Any serious survey of the available material would indicate that people, even if we restrict the term "people" to "heterosexual cis-men" as everyone else seems to have been completely erased here, are attracted to a wide variety of behaviours, from complete submissiveness, sexual or otherwise (the two sorts of submissiveness can't be equated), to complete dominance, and everything in-between. All of these can't be reduced to the same evo-psych myth about people choosing mates based on their perceived fertility/ability to raise children without some serious hand-waving. There is no evidence that perceived fertility influences mate selection in humans.



It also makes sense for society to discourage men and women from sleeping around too much, because it threatens the social order (especially if women do it, because they have more to lose from accidentally getting pregnant), but not to discourage it entirely, because it helps promote diversity in the species.

So, wait, if I'm understanding this correctly you think "society" should "discourage" people from "sleeping around"? That is definitely not the socialist perspective as we socialists fight for the abolition of all government over people.


In this context, I've been thinking about submissiveness in women and it's relationship to the inherently exploitative economic system we live in -- aka, capitalism.

In particular, I'm wondering if you guys think communism or anarchism could and would even want to change this sexual polarization; the dichotomy between masculine and feminine social roles (man as sword, woman as vessel).

Of course. Socialism means the complete abolition of the social significance of sex and gender - as well as the abolition of the family as the unit of biological and social reproduction and its replacement by the collective institutions of socialist society.

[BIXX]

The impression I get here is that the OP would find it off-putting if he were to meet a sexually dominant woman who does not fit the classic narrative of a woman. I think that really it is none of our business what women do in bed

[Quail]

Tbh, the OP genuinely makes me feel a bit sick:


man as sword, woman as vessel

A woman who is completely unwilling to submit to a man is sexually unattractive, because she communicates that she would make an unreliable mother, while a woman who is too submissive is equally unattractive, because she communicates that she may be too weak

For starters, an extremely unyielding woman is less likely to have fit children, because by being that way she is communicating to potential mates that she is unwilling to submit herself to them, and thus potentially unwilling to submit to the demanding needs of child-rearing. This makes her high investment and low returns, which is only a deal desperate men make. Men with options will just move on and find a less frigid mate.

Also, where do lesbians fit into this?

[Counterculturalist]

Tbh, the OP genuinely makes me feel a bit sick

Me too. This biologically deterministic hogwash is similar to theories of racial superiority that were used to justify slavery and are currently recycled as "race realism."

How fucking convenient that every societal construct that keeps women in a subordinate position is biologically mandated.

Anyone who insists upon (or even expects) submission on the part of others in any sort of interpersonal relationship should be viewed with suspicion; a member of a dominant group trying to perpetuate this submission - whether through appeals to pseudoscience or simply blunt force - should always be opposed.

[Yr Arth Coch]

In OP's defense, I think they are trying to look at the very base of human nature. I can see how this may come across as objectifying and what not, but I don't think that is the intended outcome. Discussing the archaic origins of various human behaviors doesn't really require an outcry.

For example,
man as sword, woman as vessel is just symbolizing the roles of the two genders. Harmless enough really. At least from my own perspective.

:)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

In OP's defense, I think they are trying to look at the very base of human nature.

And as socialists, as materialists, we reject any sort of "human nature". Moreover, "human nature", this ideological construct, has always been used to justify conservatism and reaction.

If the family life of the 21st century heterosexual man is "human nature", socialism is going to trample all over sacred human nature.





man as sword, woman as vessel

For example, is just symbolizing the roles of the two genders. Harmless enough really. At least from my own perspective.

:)

And that's the problem. Socialists stand, not for the perpetuation of gender roles but for their revolutionary destruction - and even today, many people want nothing to have with this sort of sword-sheath conservativism.

[Counterculturalist]

Appeals to human nature are invariably used to justify the existing order and stifle any attempt at change. The OP, for example, isn't just describing the way things turned out, but trying to paint current societal conditions as a normative feature of human behavior.

[Yr Arth Coch]

And as socialists, as materialists, we reject any sort of "human nature". Moreover, "human nature", this ideological construct, has always been used to justify conservatism and reaction.

If the family life of the 21st century heterosexual man is "human nature", socialism is going to trample all over sacred human nature.

When I spoke of human nature, I was thinking more of the animal instincts of our earliest ancestors.

To me, OP is just observing attitudes and behavior found in today's society and attempting to explain it. Akin to linking our early hunter-gatherer heritage to human behavior today.

It's oversimplified and doesn't account for the sheer diversity of variables in our world. But I don't think it had any malice to it.

[Os Cangaceiros]

For example, is just symbolizing the roles of the two genders. Harmless enough really. At least from my own perspective.

:)

I'm not sure if the OP was aware of it or not, but the etymology of the word "vagina" is supposedly rooted in the Latin word for "sword sheath". Fun fact.

So that's what that particular comment reminded me of, was old timey martial-inspired Iberian misogyny.

Gender essentialism is frowned upon on the far left generally so it's not a surprise that the OP's post would get a negative reaction.

[Zoop]

Just a laod of moronic pseudo-scientific babble peddled around in order to justify the subjugation of women.

[Luís Henrique]

Dominant women, hmmmmmm! :tongue_smilie:

Luís Henrique

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'm not sure if the OP was aware of it or not, but the etymology of the word "vagina" is supposedly rooted in the Latin word for "sword sheath". Fun fact.

So that's what that particular comment reminded me of, was old timey martial-inspired Iberian misogyny.

It has more to do with medical snobbery, if I recall correctly. Latin had a perfectly fine word for the female genitals, cunna (hence the modern English derogatory term because nothing repulses insecure boys more than female genitals apparently). But the medical community used the ulta-polite term vagina, from the term for sheath. Likewise phallus became penis, tail, cullus, arsehole, became anus, ring, and so on.


When I spoke of human nature, I was thinking more of the animal instincts of our earliest ancestors.

To me, OP is just observing attitudes and behavior found in today's society and attempting to explain it. Akin to linking our early hunter-gatherer heritage to human behavior today.

It's oversimplified and doesn't account for the sheer diversity of variables in our world. But I don't think it had any malice to it.

"Our earliest ancestors" is vague. Presumably you're talking about some member of the genus Homo. But these were not driven by any "animal instincts" but by their material culture. And for that matter, the earliest H. Sapiens don't how any evidence of sexual discrimination in burial and so on.

I don't think claims like this are necessarily malicious, but they do assume a definite political vision, and this vision (society controlling the sexual lives of its members, particularly women although given that sex is apparently only for procreation and that gay people have disappeared from the account completely one can only wonder), is completely antithetical to socialism.


Dominant women, hmmmmmm! :tongue_smilie:

It's like you don't even read evo-psych literature Luigi, I mean, what, are you some kind of normal person that doesn't draw Punnet squares before finding a mate?

[Major K.]

Wow -- lot's of responses! I wish I had time to respond to all of you, but in effort to avoid wide-scale digression, I'll sum things up.


The general consensus I'm reading is that:

1) As socialism wants to abolish roles that are forced on people, forced submissiveness is to be condemned.

2) The survival of the species is NOT the basis of sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction is entirely a matter of bond formation, and experientially, a matter of pleasure (i.e., personal preference).

3) Concerns about the survival of the species are invalid not because of their truth value, but because such arguments are used to oppress sectors of society. To quote Counterculturalist: "Appeals to human nature are invariably used to justify the existing order and stifle any attempt at change."


These are the dominant arguments I'm reading here -- tell me if I'm wrong.

Before I get into this, I would like to recommend you all read Roy F. Baumeister's (Professor of Social Psychology at Florida State University) essay "Is There Anything Good About Men?"

denisdutton[dot]com/baumeister.htm

It will clarify my attitude towards a lot of the appeals to patriarchy and "man vs. womanism" I'm reading in this thread.


Beyond that, I would like to share my opinions on the 3 points I listed above.


1) I agree. Though, as I stated in an earlier post, I think the thing to condemn here is not "submissiveness", but "forced".

2) I was a bit surprised by you guys with this one, when there are readily available troves of studies out there showing that sexual reproduction is primarily a matter of species survival.

One might also read up on the theories of the origin of sexual reproduction, and find that diversity is what is selected for, not pleasure. Though perhaps single celled organisms experience a primitive form of pleasure when they incorporate one another -- who really knows.


3) This is just as ridiculous as blaming guns for people shooting each other.

It's also important to point out that I make no claims of human nature. I agree with you that if I would have said "The current social order is the way it is because of human nature", then I would be reactionary and conservative. This is not what I claimed though. My goal here was simply to describe the current state of affairs so we could hypothesize about potential alternatives, not to advocate one political agenda or another.


I think the most interesting issue here is whether or not males and females would be equally distributed on the dominant/submissive spectrum in a socialist system. I doubt that this is the case. Equality doesn't require sameness, for one thing, and more importantly, sexual reproduction developed long before complex social orders emerged, and exist without it in other species today. So I doubt the significant impact any social order could have on human aspects that are more fundamental to humanity than said social order. You might as well try and abolish respiration.


Now for some Individual Claims:


"There is no evidence that perceived fertility influences mate selection in humans." -- Xhar Xhar


In what world are you living in?


psych[dot]unm[dot]edu/people/directory-profiles/miller-papers/2006-ep-of-mate-choice[dot]pdf


Read the latter half of page 4.


Luís Henrique said:

"Dominant women, hmmmmmm!"

I don't know why so many of you think I'm hating on dominant women. They exist. However, they are obviously not the norm. I was careful to use words like "mostly" in my first post to avoid people thinking they can dismiss what I'm saying because of outliers.

They exist, though they aren't the norm. I addressed the relativity of this term in detail in my first post in this thread. There is a normal range that women occupy on the submissive/dominant spectrum and if you go too far in either direction it's less likely your genes will continue on. I'm not making a moral judgement here or claiming that this is right or wrong. Just describing what I see.


Quail said:

"where do lesbians fit into this?"

Last time I checked, lesbians weren't reproducing sexually. Which is what we're talking about here. So they are irrelevant in this discussion, as are squash players and the breakfast preferences of economists on the Eastern seaboard.

Major K.

[Quail]

Quail said:

"where do lesbians fit into this?"

Last time I checked, lesbians weren't reproducing sexually. Which is what we're talking about here. So they are irrelevant in this discussion, as are squash players and the breakfast preferences of economists on the Eastern seaboard.


I'm basically a lesbian and I have a biological child...

But in all seriousness, surely women being attracted to women is really quite relevant to the idea of female submissiveness. In a relationship with two women, do they each look for a submissive mate? Do they each look for a dominant mate? Or do they just say fuck gender roles, let's both share the "masculine" and "feminine" work equally? You whole analysis breaks down when you consider non-hetero relationships.

[Counterculturalist]

Every currently existing social relation is culturally constructed and can be changed. We take issue with the conflation of social construction with biological fact.

The human species will die out if we all stop breathing. Nothing of the kind will happen if women stop being submissive. In fact, the entire notion that men and women's relations must be characterized by submission and domination is ridiculous; the species will continue to reproduce itself just fine when we abolish such oppressive relations.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

2) I was a bit surprised by you guys with this one, when there are readily available troves of studies out there showing that sexual reproduction is primarily a matter of species survival.

Referring to:


2) The survival of the species is NOT the basis of sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction is entirely a matter of bond formation, and experientially, a matter of pleasure (i.e., personal preference).

First of all, sexual reproduction is a subset of sexual behaviour in general. In the human species in the year of our Lord two-thousandth and fifteenth, it does not comprise most sexual behaviour by any stretch of the imagination.

Second, the evolutionary reason for why certain behaviours are common in a given species, if discernible, are not the same as the reasons members of that species have for engaging in said behaviour. The lizard that discards its own tail doesn't think "well this means I get to survive and pass my genes on". It seems like such a stupid thing to point out, but many people confuse the two, leading to "evolutionary" teleology and mysticism.

And for that matter, no one is sure what sexual reproduction is good for. It might help protect against parasites, or it might serve another purpose from the standpoint of genetics. But obviously species that reproduce asexually do survive - for a time.


"There is no evidence that perceived fertility influences mate selection in humans." -- Xhar Xhar


In what world are you living in?


psych[dot]unm[dot]edu/people/directory-profiles/miller-papers/2006-ep-of-mate-choice[dot]pdf


Read the latter half of page 4.

And? I mean, first of all, the "latter half of page 4" barely mentions humans, except to note they're "picky". The claim that perceived fertility influences mate selection in humans is assumed, but no source is given. Let's see the data! Particularly since a lot of the cited works are either non-peer reviewed or published in their own specialist journals (because the evo-psych cult would run into difficulties publishing in general journals). And when they use such dubious indicators as the g factor, that should raise more than a few red flags.


3) Concerns about the survival of the species are invalid not because of their truth value, but because such arguments are used to oppress sectors of society.

A "concern" doesn't have a truth value. Whether "the species" survives is all the same to us. If members of the human society independently decide to not give birth, well, so what? Humans will die out, sure. But that won't hurt anyone. And the rate of birth will drop drastically as abortion becomes freely available on demand, homophobia and transphobia become a thing of the past, the family is abolished, and women achieve substantial equality with men.

If you're so concerned (truly concerned?) with the survival of the species, do you oppose abortion as well?



Last time I checked, lesbians weren't reproducing sexually.

Last time I checked (apart from the fact that some of them do reproduce and I've yet to see a lesbian reproduce by asexual division), lesbians are attracted to women. Your little just-so story doesn't really explain that.

[Major K.]

I'm seeing a lot of interesting points here.

At the core, there appear to be a handful of areas of disagreement that are repeatedly coming up.

1) The evolutionary basis of sexual reproduction and the inherent submissiveness of the maternal/feminine role (and maybe even the validity of the maternal/feminine role entirely).

2) The difference between sexual reproduction and types of interpersonal relationships.

3) The difference between conscious motivations and experiences and the unconscious motivations that frame and shape them.


1) I reason that since women are functionally the child-bearing sex, there are certain trade-offs that historically have developed on a social level, and could only be gotten rid of if women ceased to be the sole child-bearing sex. This means I think on a social level (which is in some ways the shadow of the biological level) you could not abolish all roles, nor do I think anyone would really want to. Roles aren't just oppressive, they can also be liberating, as good actors and people like Joseph Cambell know. It's not about eliminating form, it's about "finding freedom in form".

Inter-group competition is related to birth-rate. The more kids a group has, the more the group can propagate their genes and memes and survive.

2) There is a political movement to put homosexuality on the same level as heterosexuality. Though I think homosexuality is harmless, and sometimes practice homosexual behaviors myself, it doesn't make sense to treat it the same as heterosexuality. Homosexual sex is entirely in the realm of the social game, and has to do largely with bond/alliance formation and pleasure. Heterosexual sex is based in pre-social relations and has a deeper basis in the self-interest of the species (i.e., genetic variation comes from sexual reproduction, which is a matter of the synthesis of a male and a female gamete).


3) I don't give a damn about the continuation of the species myself, and abortion is no problemo to me. But I do give a damn about the continuation of myself, as does the species. It is inconsistent to talk about class psychology while ignoring the wider frame of homo sapiens sapiens psychology. This is a non-eliniminative reduction, but I think you guys might be thinking it is eliminative. If so, I think this is a valuable distinction to be aware of.

Major K.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

1) I reason that since women are functionally the child-bearing sex, there are certain trade-offs that historically have developed on a social level, and could only be gotten rid of if women ceased to be the sole child-bearing sex.

And this demonstrates the chief problem with evo-psych: whenever the evo-psych crowd "discovers" some "timeless truth" about human behaviour it turns out to correspond to the mores of the milieu they move in. So the first generation of "evolutionary psychologists" found "timeless truths" that just happened to correspond to the positions of Clinton liberals.

But no, these "trade-offs" are not eternal, they are something socialist society will abolish by abolishing the family and replacing it with collective socialist institutions.


This means I think on a social level (which is the shadow of the biological level) you could not abolish all roles, nor do I think anyone would really want to. Roles aren't just oppressive, they can also be liberating, as good actors and people like Joseph Cambell know. It's not about eliminating form, it's about "finding freedom in form".

Obviously people do want to abolish gender roles. We socialists want to abolish gender roles and all social significance of sex and gender, no matter how "liberating" you find them.


Inter-group competition is related to birth-rate. The more kids a group has, the more the group can propagate their genes and memes and survive.

By that token, the working class is more successful than the bourgeoisie. But that is a ghastly stupid criterion for success. And what "inter-groups" defined by heredity are socialists supposed to care about? Ethnicities? As if. The moment the various ethnicities coalesce into an undifferentiated human species is the moment we open the Champagne.


2) There is a political movement to put homosexuality on the same level as heterosexuality. Though I think homosexuality is harmless, and sometimes practice homosexual behaviors myself, it doesn't make sense to treat it the same as heterosexuality. Homosexual sex is entirely in the realm of the social game, and has to do largely with bond/alliance formation and pleasure. Heterosexual sex is based in pre-social relations and has a deeper basis in the self-interest of the species (i.e., genetic variation comes from sexual reproduction, which is a matter of the synthesis of a male and a female gamete).

Wow. Dig, Lazarus, dig! First you want to "stop women from having too much sex", now you want to stop homosexuality "being put on the same level as heterosexuality" (like not being criminalised and not carrying the risk of death, presumably). I think there are other sites on the Internet catering to your type.


3) I don't give a damn about the continuation of the species myself, and abortion is no problemo to me. But I do give a damn about the continuation of myself, as does the species. It is inconsistent to talk about class psychology while ignoring the wider frame of homo sapiens sapiens psychology. This is a non-eliniminative reduction, but I think you guys might be thinking it is eliminative. If so, I think this is a valuable distinction to be aware of.

No, the species doesn't care about the continuation of itself. It doesn't care about anything. It doesn't have a mind, bless it.

[Major K.]

And this demonstrates the chief problem with evo-psych: whenever the evo-psych crowd "discovers" some "timeless truth" about human behaviour it turns out to correspond to the mores of the milieu they move in. So the first generation of "evolutionary psychologists" found "timeless truths" that just happened to correspond to the positions of Clinton liberals.

But no, these "trade-offs" are not eternal, they are something socialist society will abolish by abolishing the family and replacing it with collective socialist institutions.


I've notice you do this a lot Xhar-Xhar. Anytime people disagree with you you frame them as dogmatists and obviously less critical than you. This is an understandable defense mechanism, and often is probably a good time saver, but it is also reactionary. You are putting words in my mouth here for defamatory purposes.



Obviously people do want to abolish gender roles. We socialists want to abolish gender roles and all social significance of sex and gender, no matter how "liberating" you find them.

It's not a matter of how liberating I find them. In this case, it's a matter of child-rearing.



By that token, the working class is more successful than the bourgeoisie. But that is a ghastly stupid criterion for success. And what "inter-groups" defined by heredity are socialists supposed to care about? Ethnicities? As if. The moment the various ethnicities coalesce into an undifferentiated human species is the moment we open the Champagne.

I don't know where you're going with this...



Wow. Dig, Lazarus, dig! First you want to "stop women from having too much sex", now you want to stop homosexuality "being put on the same level as heterosexuality" (like not being criminalised and not carrying the risk of death, presumably). I think there are other sites on the Internet catering to your type.


Come now... let's not be so low as to pretend such things. This type of talk discredits you more than it does me. Anyone who's read what I wrote with an open-mind and not just looking for parts to discredit because it doesn't agree with their preconceived notions will see that.


No, the species doesn't care about the continuation of itself. It doesn't care about anything. It doesn't have a mind, bless it.

Let's not open that barrel of worms here. You'd be hard pressed to prove that the mind exists in the first place, after all.

-Major K.

[Rafiq]

Initially, I had decided to forgo making a response. I had assumed that we had all matured from this - moved on from this matter all together, and that Major was simply a curious and innocent user here to learn. One could have assumed, from how juvenile, how shockingly stupid this is (if it were to have derived from a theoretically mature adult, who has a decent understanding of biology, etc.) that Major heard this somewhere in an argument and was looking for it to be challenged before he accepts it.

But this is not so - as it happens, Major simply came here, nose stuck up, confident that he's enlightened us with evolutionary psychology - as though we're unfamiliar. Major, from the past year, we have had tireless debates and discussions on the matter of Evolutionary psychology - and I might very well (or might not) have to re-quote myself. Don't think you're telling us anything new - in fact, the Evo-psych that we had previously dealt with on this forum was infidelity more sophisticated than the utter bullshit you've bestowed us the pleasure of reading. And that is saying something.

So to take the risk of dumbing onself down:


My argument is, to put it simply, that women have a vested interest in submitting to men (at the very least during sex) because of their reproductive role in the species and subsequently with what men find sexually attractive (Conversely, women are attracted to dominant men to the degree that they are submissive women -- or we could say, regularly assume a submissive frame of mind).

You claim women have a "vested interest" in submitting to men for biological purposes. All of us, at least if we are adults - understand what this submissiveness means (something often expressed subtly in the intricacies of behavior which signify power). We will, however, get to that later.

First, let us give some background and explore the nature of such a mode of thinking, hardly unique to Major K. - perhaps, the innocent and spontaneous inclination of the masses today rather than religion is to conceive the world of human relations as the world of animal relations - the spiritual animal kingdom, as Hegel stated, which is purely an object of human imagination, has now replaced the domain of human spirit. In our so-called post-modern epoch, it is fashionable to easily answer all the difficult existential, and ontological questions (without being able to critique our mode of life itself) with the animalization of the human species. In some of the first human societies, humans assumed specific characteristics of animals, in a supernatural sense, through the wearing of their pelts, remnants of their dead bodies, and so on. Often times humans assumed the role of animals in order to reproduce the human conditions of production and life (In Africa, and forgive my ignorance of wear, some members of the tribe would do this to intimidate their chief, or call him out on bad behavior in the middle of the night). It would seem in our societies this practice has found new expression, only our ancestors were perhaps more modest than to justify this behavior with pretenses to 'science'. Because of the traumatic developments of modernization, there is no room for religious narratives in the high intellectual spheres for an "ontological" understanding of human existence. Bourgeois ideologues facilitated the embedding of a narrative of human existence that is irreducible to any of the "data" compiled. We know this because it has just as easily gained immense popularity as far as ordinary people (who are not religious) go, who have not seen any of the "data" and could care less about it. There is something pathologically distinct about evolutionary psychology that is simply not up for dismissal as being reducible to a few ideologues - it is but the mere expression of a wider ideological current that is deeply ingrained in our society, which finds expression from "animal rights" a Singer, a revived fascination with "nature", and the obsessions with what Zizek calls survivalism (from the Walking Dead to an obsession with post-apocalyptic settings, narrativizing phenomena as matters of "survival" and so on). We can call this phenomena, ecological fetishism, or the ideology of ecology - the new opium of the masses. One could say that for a time, positivism was not a reactionary development, but an achievement of bourgeois thought. Now here me out: The reason for this is because the bourgeois ideologues had finally decided that they will simply not concern themselves with extra-natural matters, that it is "unapproachable". They modestly confined themselves to the natural sciences - which were indeed scientific insofar as they gravitated away from the social (geology, even biology, physics, etc.). We know the aggrandous failure positivism was - and today, so degenerate, so corrupt and disgusting has the philosophical and intellectual waste-land that is the thought-apparatus of society that metaphysics has been reintroduced as a "science" - evolutionary psychology is NOTHING MORE than metaphysics, and approximation of findings in the natural sciences to the social. Marxists are anti-meta physicians, we understand the social domain as sufficient unto-itself, we understand it scientifically as a category of its own, irreducible to biological processes. The social, the space of inter-subjectivity dictates the actions of man, not the trivialities of biology which are either vestigial, or have been fully subordinate to social, productive processes. The precise nature of the control we have over our limbs, hands, legs (expressed in a way NO BETTER than dancing! What is dancing if not one's conformity to the social sphere?), the consciousness itself which allows fucking idiots like Major K to tell us these are all "evolutionary" processes even though he can't justify biologically why he is able to say that in the first place, and so on. This subservience to the social is most acutely represented by the helpless, irrationally crying nature of the baby when it leaves the womb - no other animal enters the Earth like this. And this "helplessness", this crying when one enters the world stays with you for the rest of your fucking life. The survival of humans after this catastrophe (which is what some neuroscientists call it!) depended no longer on autonomous biological processes which were bound by an ecology, but by the social domain - by the mode of production, the means by which man transforms the world around him. This is coordinated SOCIALLY, not biologically - you must LEARN EVERY SINGLE THING that constitutes the basis of the human experience, and these "things" will vary across historic epochs.

With the demise of the worker's movement and the banishment of Marxism from the universities, sociobology in the 1970's filled a gap where Marxism previously occupied, and what remains of the humanitiies is arrogantly dismissed as "postmodernism". The greatest irony, however, is that there is nothing more postmodern than Evolutionary psychology/sociobiology. So let us first ask the question: Why is your argument that women have an innate, physiological propensity to "submitting" to men? Have you been met with some kind of empirical evidence of the physiological structures which make this inevitable in the brain, and if you have - would you mind showing this evidence to us? No, in reality, you have "chosen" this argument because it tells a story which you find most conformative to our present understanding of evolution - but this is patently wrong, and unscientiifc. Why? Because this is an ahistorical notion. If you're going to tell us there are innate physiological structures which make inevitable the "submissiveness" of women, THEN YOU NEED TO NOT ONLY LOCATE IT, BUT EXPLAIN TO US WHY THE CONTENT, OR EXPRESSION OF THIS "SUBMISSIVENESS" HAS GREATLY VARIED ACROSS HISTORIC EPOCHS AND DIFFERENT SOCIETIES. Something that is innate physiologically or ordained by biological processes is done so because it establishes some kind of ecological balance - a definite trajectory path of predictable behaviors. You cannot say that "Well, all of these societies have in common that women were submissive" because the connotations of submissiveness, how it was signified, how the behavior was expressed, and how ti was articulated in the consciousness of those involved was ESSENTIALLY different. You cannot "abstract" behaviors here and call them essential characteristics, because something that is innate would not possibly be expressed in ways that are so varied and malleable across historic epochs.

Take a minute and think about what you're doing here - you're actually telling us that there's some magical THING inside women which their behavior is owed to. From absolutely zero evidence you say this - none! The manner in which you speak is so profoundly stupid it boggles the mind: "The species" you say - WHAT fucking speices? Your species? Would you care to biologically justify why you're on Revleft.com sharing this great revelation with us? Are you, Major K., outside of the species, or are these inevitable behaviors - no doubt deriving from physical reflexes in your mind (which is ALL biological behavior in animals - pure proximity with their surroundings) reserved for the great "other" you call human - the masses who are too stupid to come to this realization. Why this revocation of inter-subjectivity? Let's not even go over the fact that on a statistical level, even if we play the devil's advocate and accept all of these unscientific presumptions, the notion does not make any fucking sense - this behavior couldn't have been "adapted" for because for how complex it is, there must have been a point where women had to make or break being dominant or subsmisive. But from what we understnad of biology and genetic-level adaptations, this is simply impossible. What you fail to understand is that behind what would otherwise seem the "spontaneous" and "autnomous" behavior of willess animals, vast and complex ideological networks are at play here wherein these sexual processes are deeply ingrained into both the consciosuenss and subconsciosuenss of women (and men). No women is actually "submissive" by nature - women have to LEARN to be submissive, but they remain fully constituted subjects and individuals - they, like slaves, even though in a state of "submission" as far as power relations go, must approximate this behavior by consciously articulating it in such a way that it is justified, deemed normal, better, and so on. So you don't even need any fucking "innate" biological processes because any FUCKING IDIOT WITH A RUDIMENTARY UNDERSTANDING OF PSYCHO-SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT CAN UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A DIMENSION WHICH IS ENTIRELY FACILIATED ON A SOCIAL LEVEL.

And that is the crux of the fucking problem here - for Evolutionary psychologists, the historical - the spiritual - the social, all of these categories are just as passive and ontologically unapproachable as a natural environment - if you actually look at the contents of their work, what these humans are adapting to is NOT simply an environment, but a mode of production. The problem, however, is that men and women themselves constitute this mode of production, this FIELD of being, it is not some kind of autonomous, magical force that is in the background, that which men and women CONFORM to - they make it themselves. Such is its ideological nature, and that is why I'm going to slam you with a basic question: What is the practical use of evolutionary psychology? Surely every natural science has a practical use, but tell me, WHAT PRACTICAL USE among ANYONE does evolutionary psychology have? Neuroscience, for example, has medicinal, pharmaceutical value and gives us some insight on how to manipulate neurological processes. So what is the practical insight of evolutionary psychology? What makes it INHERENTLY political, and NOT a natural science? The fact that he only practical use for evolutionary psychology is, and has always been reacting to and narrativizing phenomena which are either extra-biological or sufficiently utno themselves assume the role of dictating biological processes - the only practical use that evolutionary psychologists have given us is to use this "new-found information" to impact policy-making decisions at hte level of government, or the university campus (vis a vis rape), AND SO ON. THIS is what makes it a pseudo-science, largely, its role has been PURELY To perpetuate the existing order and to transform things which are answerable ONLY to the social dimension into naturally ordained inevitable truths. Its practical use? Cannon-fodder for the reaction when feminists fight for laws which on a formal level benefit women in some way. But most liberals won't dismiss evolutionary psychology becuase they are dismissed by it. Many Marxists will even say that "Well there is some truth to it". But one must be a RADICAL here and do the honorable thing (the historically honorable thing, because come the revolution, do you think this "science" would endure? It would be cast off into the dustbin of history, as phrenology was) and say ALL OF EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY IS BULLSHIT. THERE IS NOT ONE CLAIM, OR "HYPOTHESIS" PRODUCED BY EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY WHICH HAS A SHRED OF THE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE NECESSARY TO SUPPORT IT. EVERY SINGLE CLAIM BY EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGISTS IS WHOLLY UNFOUNDED FROM A SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE, IT IS 100% BULLSHIT! The ONLY adaptations as far as humans are concerned which actually matter are those which precisely destroyed any balanced relationship to nature - any kind of innate physiological structures which made humans bound by a single habitat, or ecology. What "selections' for example, account for swimming? Is the "aquatic ape" hypothesis to be taken seriously, after all? But back on the matter at hand:


A woman who is completely unwilling to submit to a man is sexually unattractive, because she communicates that she would make an unreliable mother, while a woman who is too submissive is equally unattractive, because she communicates that she may be too weak (or in layman's terms, "boring") to bear viable offspring to begin with. This leaves us with what we have around the globe today: women occupying the space mostly between quite submissive and the neutral mid-point between submissive and dominant. And this distribution makes sense from a survival of the species perspective.

Let's step back, ladies and gentlemen, and think for 5 minutes about this. No, I want you all to do this - sit back and think for 5 minutes about what Major K. said. Is this not shockingly stupid? Is this not the epitome of ridiculousness? What cack, what poisonous filth, what lunacy, degeneracy has befallen the "higher" forms of thought in the bourgeois intellectual apparatus! What IGNORANCE does it take to actually go on with your life and think to yourself "hmm, this is true, this actually explains the female gender in our society and why women are submissive". We are meant to say that women who are not submissive are "unattractive" because not being submissive (i.e. doing your motherly duty) is "unattractive". Let us ignore this unignorable tautological nonsense, let's just look at this at face value: How can the relationship between submission to men's will (the phallus, the signifier in-thought) and the propensity to be a "reliable mother" actually be properly established here? I mean, this shouldn't be the bulk of our arguments, but this is just too easy - there are innumerable primitive societies wherein men engage in similar tasks in raising and teaching children, there are innumerable primitive societies wherein women had more - if not just as much influence as far as immediate concerns of power for the society as men. Women in most of these societies, bear in mind, either provided an equal share or more of the sum-total caloric intake. So this connection is already an unfounded, unjustified one - why would women NEED to "submit" to men in order to raise their fucking kids? But nevermind this. How EXACTLY, in a way that is consistent with pretenses to innate predisposition, is this behavior or "submission" expressed? Is there a consistent way for women to submit to men, across historic epochs, that is not an abstraction? You claim it "makes sense for the survival of the species perspective". But what you don't fucking understand is that the survival of the human species and the survival of our present mode of production and conditions of life (which have not always existed) are not synonymous. Human survival has been reproduced and expressed in various different ways across history, human survival is the basis for human society - true - but no two human societies are alike unless their conditions of life and production are alike. Biological processes reproduce chemical processes - so too do social processes reproduce biological ones. The social is not subservient to the biological, the biological is to the social - which is why we can, and are beginning to develop new abilities to manipulate ourselves biologically while remaining human. This "ability" is not owed to any innate biological structures (even if they facilitate it), it is owed to the social dimension dictating how these biological processes are expressed.

So it is tautological, pointless and childish to claim that "this makes sense from a survival of the species perspective", solely because it make sense as far as the reproduction of the existing order - capitalism - goes. It's so cute how these evolutionary psychologists think that the sexual aroma of the bar, the nightclub or the concert are applicable to societies like tribal Afghanistan or pre-Communist Albania - where there wasn't (and still isn't, largely in Afghanistan) even room for men to select for this "submissiveness" as most marriages were arranged and - frankly - women were directly, through DIRECT violence, forced to be "submissive". This has been the case for most of human civilization, it is a rarity that men (or women) can just "pick" their mates whimsically, and in those historic instances wherein this was common, it hardly conforms to such silly narratives - I guess women have to be beaten into assuming roles and expressing behaviors which are innate, inevitable and "natural" anyway, though. Fucking idiot...

Of course, we can twist and turn this logic around as much as we want. There is no end to its malleability. Why wouldn't men's submissiveness be equally important for the survival of the species, because they needed to be "reliable" hunters who brought food for women? Why couldn't MEN be submissive, with penetration not signifying dominance but subservience to female will or desire? I can pull 1,000,000 scenarios out of my ass, kiddo, and all of them make "just as much" sense as yours. Do not tempt me either - I LITERALLY can do this.

To briefly delve into the ontological temptation of evolutionary psychology, no point is better encapsulated by Chomsky, in defense of his "Universal grammar" theory, itself which is not even testable - he claims that "Well of course there is a human nature, for infants already begin to process information in a way that resembles a language" (Compared to what? What does this actually mean? That infants are not kangaroos means that there are essential behavioral characteristics about humans in the same way it is for Kangaroos?). It stems from the basic ontological question of: "Why this, rather than that""? In attempting to understand the origins of humans, of human consciousness, this radical point of difference must be asserted - why do things follow in this way rather than another way?

But such questison are just as ontologically ridiculous as asking "Why is the Lion not a whale, and a whale not a lion?"- it is a simple re-hashing of theology (and the ontological argument for the existence of god) under the guise of science. But as Marx stated, such questions are purely abstractions - take away the abstractions, and there are no such questions which can remain. Marx, speaking about the notion of a god and creation:

You will reply, however: I grant you this circular movement; now grant me the progress which drives me ever further until I ask: Who begot the first man, and nature as a whole? I can only answer you: Your question is itself a product of abstraction. Ask yourself how you arrived at that question. Ask yourself whether your question is not posed from a standpoint to which I cannot reply, because it is wrongly put. Ask yourself whether that progress as such exists for a reasonable mind. When you ask about the creation of nature and man, you are abstracting, in so doing, from man and nature. You postulate them as non-existent, and yet you want me to prove them to you as existing. Now I say to you: Give up your abstraction and you will also give up your question. Or if you want to hold on to your abstraction, then be consistent, and if you think of man and nature as non-existent, ||XI| then think of yourself as non-existent, for you too are surely nature and man. Don’t think, don’t ask me, for as soon as you think and ask, your abstraction from the existence of nature and man has no meaning. Or are you such an egotist that you conceive everything as nothing, and yet want yourself to exist?

You can reply: I do not want to postulate the nothingness of nature, etc. I ask you about its genesis, just as I ask the anatomist about the formation of bones, etc.

But since for the socialist man the entire so-called history of the world is nothing but the creation of man through human labor, nothing but the emergence of nature for man, so he has the visible, irrefutable proof of his birth through himself, of his genesis. Since the real existence of man and nature has become evident in practice, through sense experience, because man has thus become evident for man as the being of nature, and nature for man as the being of man, the question about an alien being, about a being above nature and man – a question which implies the admission of the unreality of nature and of man – has become impossible in practice.

What Marx is saying here is radically atheist. Marx is telling us that positing such ontological questions are abstractions from a definite, concrete and implicit presupposition that an axiomatic real already exists. One cannot "prove" non-existence without thinking they themselves do not exist - and likewise, one cannot "abstract" what we observe in the animal kingdom as the basis of human existence, because this is tautological: The consciousness that allows us to taxamonize, and analyze animals is NOT an expression of "God's eye view" - we humans taxamonize, and understand animals already in approximation to us. Marx said that the best way to understand the anatomy of an ape, is to understand the anatomy of a man - and again, this is a radically profound insight. The fact that we are invested with the power to consciously articulate the animal in such a way that we can manipulate it means that the physiological processes which make us similar to animals are trivialities of human consciousness which are just as malleable by it. Human cosnciosuness, therefore, stems from a new dimension all-together: The social dimension of life. This is why those who speak of a "natural state" are the greatest fools, whether leftists or rightsists - there is no "natural state", for every single human society had complex rituals, dances, narratives, mythologies, etc. to sustain its conditions of existence. Take this dimension away, and what is left is the helplessness of the wailing infant. Hegel took this even further when he spoke of "Africans" (which was rather progressive for it's time, because it rejected any racialist-essentialist readings of Africans), which we can substitute for hunter-gatherers. For Hegel, this wasn't some kind of "pure state", it was a state of rupture wherein humans were coping with the traumatic effects of being expelled from the animal kingdom, possessed by a death drive . To quote Zizek:

In his anthropological writings, Kant emphasized that the human animal needs disciplinary pressure in order to tame an uncanny "unruliness" which seems to be inherent to human nature - a wild, unconstrained propensity to insist stubbornly on one's own will, cost what it may. It is on account of this "unruliness" that the human animal needs a Master to discipline him: discipline targets this "unruliness," not the animal nature in man.

In Hegel's Lectures on Philosophy of History, a similar role is played by the reference to "negroes": significantly, Hegel deals with "negroes" before history proper (which starts with ancient China), in the section entitled "The Natural Context or the Geographical Basis of World History": "negroes" stand there for the human spirit in its "state of nature," they are described as a kind of perverted, monstrous child, simultaneously naive and extremely corrupted, i.e. living in the pre-lapsarian state of innocence, and, precisely as such, the most cruel barbarians; part of nature and yet thoroughly denaturalized; ruthlessly manipulating nature through primitive sorcery, yet simultaneously terrified by the raging natural forces; mindlessly brave cowards...

During the pinnacle of bourgeois philosophy, German idealism, precisely those crazy aspects of man were what they used to DISTINGUISH from animals, which had a balanced relationship to nature, were predictable, knew their role, ETC. Wheter this description from Hegel was true for Africans or not does not change the fact that it encapsulates a very basic feature of humans - actively responding to nature, being thrown into the thresher of the world with no "innate" properties to help them cope with it - a thorouhgly helpless, wholly dependent (on the "master" or the social dimension) creature, like an infant.


It also makes sense for society to discourage men and women from sleeping around too much, because it threatens the social order (especially if women do it, because they have more to lose from accidentally getting pregnant), but not to discourage it entirely, because it helps promote diversity in the species.

Now the bus out of stupid-town has made its last stop. Do you know what you're actually saying? "Society should discourage men and women from sleeping around, but not too much" - WHAT? You're making a pretense to NATURAL SCIENCE, so tell us how this is MEASURABLE - approximate the physiological propensity for "society" to do this or that, and explain the variance in the manner in which it "discourages" and "encourages" "sleeping around". The reality, of course, is that there is nothing contradictory or inversely proportional about the society which discourages "sleeping around" and hedonistic sexual pleasure - Lenin even was able to take note of this, BEFORE the counter-culture. Keep in mind we're only talking about capitalism, and of it modern society, which has existed for 200 years. You claim that it "threatens" the social order because women have more to lose from 'accidentally getting pregnant'. I suppose we're too embedded in our "instincts" that we couldn't have come up with contraceptive methods. Of course, you can go ahead and try to explain female promiscuity today in terms of increased contraceptive methods and their availability, and while certainly it is a factor, it is rather lazy thinking - one should instead recognize that the "sexual revolution" proceeded the pill, or the predispositions to it, from the "decadent" Jazz culture of the 30's to even the mid 50's with Rock. One should rather understand this in terms of the increased socialization of labor, and the increased complexity of capitalist production both on a technical and social level (and therefore an increased complexity of life and the expression of bourgeois sexuality). But back to the matter at hand, there is no contradiction to this behavior - for the whole point is that the prohibition itself sustains the hedonistic excess of pleasure, this is the underlying basis of today's hypersexualized society - precisely because repression remains, but in a (seemingly) transgressed form, is our society hyper-sexualized. There is no conservative politician without a sex scandal, there is no catholic priest without the pedophile priest, and the list goes on. Even in Iran, it is not uncommon that Mullahs are found in such scandals. There is something pathological about the conservative reaction to ALL forms of sexuality which make it enticing to them - hence the most depraved acts are not done by righteous sexual liberationists, but tend to be done by conservatives. But does sexuality actually promote diversity in the "species" (And child, stop with this stupid fucking term - you don't know how stupid you look when you say 'species' - we only came up with this term to compare humans to other animals, we were not ingrained with having any regard for the "species" because that can fucking mean anything. Today, some liberals will elevate dogs to our "species" compared to marginalized, nameless masses of humans)?

Perhaps in the context of 21st century globalization, or even the free-flowing movement of labor since the 19th century if you want, but as far as most of human history goes no, it doesn't promote "diversity" in the human species. Do you actually think that before the sexual revolution, incest was prevalent? The inter-mingling of different nations throughout history, or tribes, and the arrangement of marriages was must as much contributive of "diversity" as arbitrarily fucking around. But again, we're speaking in terms of "adaptive" traits that our ancestors adapted for hundreds of thousands of years ago, so this is even more stupid - has it ever occurred to you that human physiological "diversity" couldn't have been selected for because the time-frame for doing this was too short? Early humans left Africa around 70-100 thousand years ago, supposedly. The physiologically distinct characteristics, such as skin color, facial features, ETC. are much, much younger. How would this "innate" propensity to spread genetic diversity, how would this have been selected for within the context of the FIRST human societies of the Savannah 200,000 years ago? Do you mean to tell us that Africans are "less evolved"or are "less human" than non-African humans, who could have reaped the benefit of this? But again, even if we assume all of that is bullshit - even if this "story" worked, it still is unscientific and nonsensical, because again, no real empirical evidence has compelled anyone to believe that this is a viable hypothesis that this is true - nothing has been found at the level of physiology which would substantiate this, and frankly, as far as a scientific understanding of humans go on a historic level - the narratives are absolutely fucking nonsensical and like notions of "innate intelligence", emanate a stunning lack of an understanding of the essential basis of what it means to be human. Again, humans do not have an 'ecology' to select for - humans are arguably eusocial creatures, fully subordinate to the social dimension of life. The more an animal is social, the less it depends on innate autonomous processes - and this spectrum can be observed from a worm to a Chimpanzee. Humans have surpassed the biological and rendered it subordinate to the social - because the balance with nature that biological processes select for is gone, humans, as social creatures, can transform nature and engage in mass migrations that are not predictable as far as a physiologically ordained trajectory path (unlike other animals, which change their environment, but in a pre-determined and predictable way - i.e. with no creation at hand).


In particular, I'm wondering if you guys think communism or anarchism could and would even want to change this sexual polarization; the dichotomy between masculine and feminine social roles (man as sword, woman as vessel).

Also, do you think most women would stop being attracted to dominant men in a communist world order, or do you predict it changing in some other way?

This is a meaningless question. What does "dominant" mean? In a Communist society, one can assume that enthusiastic vitality of life would be "attractive", but one can only assess from historical experience. What constituted a "dominant" man in the very early Soviet Union, where publicly to sexually engage with a class enemy was just as despicable an act as sleeping with a crocodile? As far as "dominance" is concerned in our society, of course this would disappear - "dominance" is only sought after because it signifies legitimacy in our social order. Women, who are denied sexual agency and identity, who are unable to desire but can only desire to be desired, will of course prefer those men who fulfill this pathological fantasy, which is ingrained purely by social and ideological forces, over men who are insecure in themselves, and who therefore inspire insecurity in women's sexual engagement. What is sex if not fantasy? This is why women steer clear of fedora wearing creeps - it's not because some magical thing inside them is telling them to, it's because they inspire insecurity in women's faith to ruling sexual rituals, it reveals the "weird", so to speak, uncanny and raw nature of sex today. Sex is facilitated by fantasy, women will prefer dominant men because it is the male gender which signifies desire, it is the phallus which is the signifier of sexual difference. What that means is that women are NOT so different from men - they are NOT a distinct gender that is autonomous or independent. Women is what you call the absence of the phallus, the LACK-OF. The vagina, in our society, is not conferred its own sexual identity.

Think about this "submissiveness", you fool. Men who are gendered as females in prison, or boys in ancient societies - or even present-day Afghanistan, learn to be just as "submissive" as a female. How is this? Were they born with that destiny? If so, how does that explain the various slave-boys from birth in ancient societies who were sold as sexual slaves, regardless of any real evaluation of their hormonal balance? This of course ignores homosexuality, and transgender individuals - but we can assume Major K. believes they were "born" not wanting to reproduce. And then, when we look at the fact that in the most promiscuous places in the world, developed countries in the west, fertility rates are much lower, and the proportion of women who do not have any children is much higher, and as a result of some formal equal rights (formal, mind you, as in law), this is greatly increasing in the west. This submissiveness refers to the enslavement of the female, even if she is fully financially independent, etc. - insofar as she is a female, her sexuality is commodified. The classic bourgeois family re-enters the picture with a new twist, its basic principles are now manifested within the intricacies of the malleability of everyday "hedonistic" interactions, at the nightclub, and so on. Even this is fostering such a great reaction that it will not go on indefinitely. The submissiveness is entangled in so many complex rituals, psychological processes, consciously ordained behavior, pathologies, that to claim it has its basis in biology is tantamount to the religious notion that "god works in mysterious ways", i.e. "The biology works in mysterious ways we don't yet fully understand". There doesn't NEED To be an underlying biological justification, however! It is answerable TO ITSELF if one approaches the social dimension scientifically.

In a Communist society, gender itself would be destroyed - the sexual order would be entirely different. Perhaps distinctions might remain, but this will not be gender - in a Communist society, all human would likely be bisexual (this is, after all, behavior which must be REPRESSED from birth, and there is no reason for its continued repression in a socially self-conscious society), which alone would destroy the sexual connotations of "gender roles".


let us simply agree that sexual intercourse is a nodal point in the reproduction of humans, and is unique because of the opportunity of variation that coincides with the synthesis of male and female gametes.

Okay, but what you fail to understand is that hte WHOLE POINT of the argument is that these processes are ordained on a social level - not a biological one. The social defines teh expression of the biological processes (Which OF COURSE exist! They are just not relevant "psychologically". Biological processes refer to physical reflexes, they refer to PURE PROXIMITY of them! "Biological processes" do not account for consciousness, rather the opposite is true)


however, I don't think submission is just forced as you seem to think. I think submission is also, on a deeper level, the dominant way the feminine expresses love.

Well of course it is not enforced with direct violence i.e. the whip or the stick. But anyone who is not 10 years old who understands feminist theory understands this very well. The "deeper level" you're talking about, which includes the articulation of this submission for women themselves, OF COURSE exists! The point, however, is that it is not owed to the "soul", or to "biological processes", it is owed to social relations of life. These are incredibly complex, deeply rooted (after birth) psychologicla processes at hand here - saying that "dur it makes sense from da biology perspective" is so abominably stupid that it should be a crime.

These are the same philistines, ladies and gentlemen, who claim "Oh humanities and social sciences r worthless an not exact lul". They want to fuck around on our territory, and yet they don't want to be responsible for incurring our wrath.


She cooks you food, she calls and asks how you're doing, she helps clean up after you

Why does she express her love IN THIS way, however, and finally, what is the nature of this love, its function, its origin, and so on? WITHOUT referring to abstractions, can you actually answer that question while falling back on "biology"? You cannot. Of course what you say is true, but it's fucking stupid. Women in Saudi Arabia or primitive Arabian societies (because on a social level, Saudi Arabia, like the gulf states, are not much more advanced than Yemen - it's simply more wealthy) who are forced with violence to get married, and perpetually forced to get used to being constantly raped, they will express their "love" for their kids and their husband in such ways too. But this is only because this is how they learn to love - that they do it in this way sais nothing about it being an inevitable condition of love itself - which is an abstraction here.


Your way of looking at things degrades her love by reducing it to her fulfilling a social role that she's been coerced into.

Oh, god! My god, who knew feminists never received such arguments! How dare they insult the housewife - or in the case of modern Islamic societies - the dignified, veiled women, for her role is a loving one, a genuine one, how dare we insult her slavery by not prostrating before the fact that slavery is never just direct, brutal violence?

You, an evolutionary psychologist, has come to lecture us on "reductionism"? For fuck's sake, YOU"RE REDUCING IT TO BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES. Then again, Major, let me ask you: What biological processes can account for our criticism of this gender role, this "love"? Can evolutionary psychology explain it? No? "Maybe god is real, then" they will say. Fucking moronic...

We "degrade" her love, fine. You, you scum of scum, you degrade her existence as a living subject, a living social creature, you perpetually continue to degrade her even by merit of the rules you give her in the first place by justifying her slavery.

So "natural" is this gender role that women must be perpetually degraded, humiliated and subjugated to the ruling sexual order. It is an ACTIVE process which yes - is sustained by violence if not direct, found within the intricacies of its raw expression. For every "nice" and "polite" yuppie FUCKER there is the man who rapes and beats his spouse behind closed doors. Your rotten monstrous, disgusting fucking bourgeois sexuality must hide behind the shadows for the heroes of our tradition have expelled it from the realm of openess.


But where do you think those come from? Is sexual polarity to be neutralized in your ideal world then?

They come form an approximation of sexuality to the conditions of life's reproduction itself - the relationship to the production and reproduction of society itself. It is facilitated by ritual, and again, these rituals stem from a reflection of one's own conditions of life themselves. That is where they 'come from', they come from the sexual slavery of women, the commodification of female sexuality INSOFAR AS THE MEANS BY WHICH HUMAN INDIVIDUALS ARE REPRODUCED MUST BE REGULATED ON A SOCIAL LEVEL. Again this stupid pseudo-ontology - even if sexual polarity remains in a post-capitalist society, which with artificial birth there is no reason to think it would - even if it would remain, it would be so radically different that you would have a hard time abstracting characteristics in common with the "sexual polarity" which predominates today.


But to restate my def: submissiveness is "putting the interests of someone or something else before your own, without even necessarily thinking about it."

Sometimes it's coercive, sometimes it's willing. I'm not here talking about one or the other, but I'd like to emphasize the authenticity of the latter and discourage the former.

Nobody gives a fuck about your "definition". How do you define dominance then, oh gallant defender of women? What you overlook, and fail to undersatnd is the fact that both are just as "authentic" - emphasizing or fetishizing WILL here is the logic of neoliberaism. Often times slavery was "willing" too, but this does not justify slavery - for free choice does not and never exists, the conditions which define one's magnitude of choices are absolutely irreducible to the individuals themselves. To be a proletarian is "willing" as well, but WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE? HAVE WOMEN CHOSEN SEXUAL SLAVERY VIS A VIS THEIR OWN SEXUAL LIBERATION, OR WAS THIS CHOICE JUXTAPOSED TO BEING EXPELLED FROM PARTICIPATING IN SOCIETY, FROM BEING A PART OF THE SOCIAL ORDER, SURVIVING, ETC.?


For starters, an extremely unyielding woman is less likely to have fit children, because by being that way she is communicating to potential mates that she is unwilling to submit herself to them, and thus potentially unwilling to submit to the demanding needs of child-rearing. This makes her high investment and low returns, which is only a deal desperate men make. Men with options will just move on and find a less frigid mate. I could give you more reasons, but maybe I'll just link my essay and you can get my whole position in its entirety that way.

Link your fucking essay you clown, I'll fuck it up so badly that you won't even be able to look at it without reflecting on its stupidity. It's so cute how we're just supposed to assume that "naturally", any sexual engagement with men involves women being "submissive" to them - as though women are incapable of sexual pleasure physiologically, as though women, by merit of physiology, cannot love or enjoy sex. Look at this - THIS is ideology! "Submit herself".. Why not the reversal? Why can't men "submit" themselves to women? Why is the penetrative role the "active" one? Why is "receiving" synonymous with submission? Does it HAVE to be like that? If a fat aristocrat is fed food by his servants, what is the relationship of power there? Why are the servants not taking the 'active' role in feeding him?

The fact that you can't even question this shit just shows that you're absolutely not equipped with storming in here with all this. We wouldn't mind if you were more modest - but you act like you actually know what you're talking about. You absolve yourself of the responsibility of CRITICALLY THINKING about these ideas before you share them with us, you, hysterically flail your fucking arms around blindly running around touting the most nonsensical bullshit just because you suspect it "might be" true. This is why we meet you with hostility, Major. You consider it innate that women do not want to have sex with men, that they must be "compelled" to do so. Since you fuckers love comparing us to primates, has it ever occurred to you that in Bonobo societies, women actually often times compel men to fuck them? Even by the standards of the Chimpanzee your understanding of sexuality is beyond fucking stupid.

Again how these fuckers speak "Men" and "women" - so fascinating, what actual pictures are in their minds when they think about this? Psychologically, that is, what is going through their heads when they're picturing these scenarios? This self-ironic, cynical tone - "men" and "women", "males" and "females", it's so fucking disgusting how they use these words. Because they abstract the violence they observe on a day-to-day basis and assume something essential, "natural" about it, just as "natural" as the autonomous "male" or "female" behavior exhibited by the Giraffe. You see these yuppie motherfuckers, these silicon valley fuckers, these "men" who by no means are physiologically able to justify their masculinity, looking at you with sweat down their foreheads, in such a passive-aggressive tone, smiling, eyes wide open - "Well, males will just go on and find a less frigid mate" - "mate" he fucking says. THIS is how violence works in our societies - it is not direct, it is PASSIVELY perpetuated, today's sexual relations, in all their complexity, are reducible to "males" and "mates" and 'females". This bare-survivalist logic, this absolute fucking DRIVEL, this is what permeates predominant ideology rather than religion. Come the revolution, we wijll drink the fucking blood of these yuppie motherfuckers, these scum of scum, we will castrate them and feed their dicks to the wild animals. How's this for finding "mates" and "ecological" behavior, motherfucker? The revolution must come so that they are reminded that it is death drive which dictates the human being, it is this madness.

Anyone who goes to a nightclub possessed with sexual depredation of women, thinking to themselves "i'm looking for mates" is scared shitless at the prospect that there is nothing to justify this behavior in terms of something that he is essentially born with. Are you looking for 'mates'? Is that what defines the complexity, the romantic intimacy of sex, its fantastical dimension, is that really what that fucking is? The feeling of satisfaction derived from "getting laid", even though you won't get anyone pregnant, just to feel ACCEPTED, having a sense of belonging in our hypersexualized society, is that "looking for mates"?

Or perhaps it is because there are few means by which the social dimension is more facilitated than through sexuality - sexuality masturbates the conditions of the ruling order, it is an integral part of human existence and human being, it is - for Marx - the greatest expression of a social relationship itself - love, and reciprocal sensual pleasure, the ability to determine and master one's sexual urges in a way that conforms to the reproduction of the existing order. Mind you, child, this is a theological act, a ritual, it is not something you are born knowing how to do.


It's only negative from a narrow perspective.

We are concerned with destroying this rotten fucking order. Why should we care about your standards of "good" and "bad"? Why should we fucking care? For the slave master, slavery is "good". For fuck's sake, even the Southern slave owners said this: "Slavery is not a necessary evil, but a necessary good". Blacks, after all, were able to survive and live in relative security in slavery. Many southern masters treated their slaves with kindness and compassion, too. You scum who are bound by strengthening our chains, of course this is not "negative". But come the revolution we will drink your blood - and this will be just as "positive" for us as enslaving the female soul is "positive" for you.

What Communist cannot shrivel in disgust at the filthy bourgeois sexual morality, the degradation and subservience it confers toward women? What Communist is not possessed with the feminine hatred, the female aspiration toward freedom, the hatred of the male master, in all its apologetic dishonesty, cowardice, contemptibly? Such is true for all revolutionary epochs. Even bourgeois revolutions, as it was during the French revolution - the most ardent defenders of Robespierre and the terror were the women of Paris, who would hysterically strike down verbally Robespierre's opponents. No great revolutionary upheaval can occur without the upheaval of women, as Marx understood - because each revolutionary instance provides a unique and provisional opportunity for women to free themselves of their old obligations and bonds, to for a small moment in time taste sweet freedom from the perpetual hell that is propertied sexual relations only to be cast down by a new sexual order. The proletarian revolution will not cast them down - it will, by armed and militant means, defend the freedom of women with blood and death.


The history of what is considered attractive is superficially diverse, but if you look a bit deeper there are some core traits that are universally considered desirable for mates.

These "core traits" are abstractions, however. Because their expression is DIFFERENT, they cannot be essential, for something that is biologically inevitable would have a definite medium of expression. These "core traits' only exist INSOFAR as there is a degree of similarity between the historic epochs in question. That is to say, just because property exists in capitalism, while also existing in ancient societies, does not mean that property is innate - it means both capitalism and ancient societies reproduce different conditions of property for largely different reasons. Marx, who I continue to quote - is correct, for to paraphrase, if the appearance of something and its actual essential function coincided, all science would be superfluous.


I'm not talking about appearance level stuff, though symmetry does seem to be consistently important on that level.

What does this actually mean? Why would a society value asymmetry? Why would one lop-sided half of the face be considered more attractive? And for the record, even this was debunked. As it happens, what is important is not the degree of symmetry for attractiveness, but the absence of extreme asymmetry. That is tantamount to saying "though having five hands is important on that level". That is because the grand majority of people, at least on some level, tend to have symmetrical bodies and faces to some extent. It is the deviation from this standard which is not attractive. Numerous studies even on modern day society show that symmetry is not even important at all when it is not taken to extremes.

I love how these fuckers have to find the most bare, ridiculous levels of abstraction to constitute "evidence". For example, I saw recently that "evidence" for UG theory was that all languages tend to structure sentences around a specific message/idea or point. What? So when are we just going to go ahead and say "language alone is evidence of universal grammar"? And even this evidence rested on flimsy foundations!


But moderate submissiveness, as in motherly and maidenly qualities, for one obvious example, is a universally attractive quality in women as mates.

Except HOW THESE ARE EXPRESSED AND SIGNIFIED ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ACROSS DIFFERENT HISTORIC EPOCHS. So no, there is NOTHING universal about these "qualities" unless we play with SUPERSTITIOUS abstractions. Like are you fucking stupid? Do you actually think there are essential traits, "things" which "express themselves" or "manifest" in humans throughout history? How? Is this innate behavior somehow a fucking magical ghost or something? Divine will?


2) The survival of the species is NOT the basis of sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction is entirely a matter of bond formation, and experientially, a matter of pleasure (i.e., personal preference).

The survival of the species is at the basis of the social means by which this is facilitated. This includes sexuality, dietary habits, and the lived expression of life itself - dancing, art, and so on. It's not SIMPLY about survival, but what CONSTITUTES the rudimentary human existence and its basis. This varies across societies.


3) Concerns about the survival of the species are invalid not because of their truth value, but because such arguments are used to oppress sectors of society.

Talking about the survival of the species is a conscious act. If it was innate, it wouldn't have to be a "concern" for we would autonomously facilitate the "survival of the species". If you're trying to say that the absence of female submissiveness is going to endanger everyone's survival, you're going to have to try harder than saying "*cries* but mommy's love is 4 real!".

That we can debate about it suggests that it is in fact NOT inevitable at all. That is the point - no one is denying the existence of submissiveness defining the female gender, but what this is owed to.


Before I get into this, I would like to recommend you all read Roy F. Baumeister's (Professor of Social Psychology at Florida State University) essay "Is There Anything Good About Men?"

No, fuck off, you need to give us direct arguments and we'll address those. Don't fucking hide your cowardly ass behind some bumfuck book no one has the time or intuition to read. Anyone can play these games. Want me to throw 1000 books at you that I can probably derive my arguments from?


when there are readily available troves of studies out there showing that sexual reproduction is primarily a matter of species survival.

Lol, what? Okay, so if a species does not reproduce, it will not survive. Why do you even need studies for this? It is a basic axiom, and a straw-man that we deny this. The point is that the specific EXPRESSION of this reproduction, beyond is physiological basis (actually, you know, fertilizing eggs, giving birth, etc.) is ordained not on a biological level but a social one. This is even true, probably, for most "higher" mammals like Dolphins and primates. The point of the gorilla, for example, is that he is dictated by the proximity of his biological constitution in his social engagements. If what you say is correct, then I should have been born knowing how to reproduce. But I wasn't, I wasn't even FUCKING born how to walk or speak. Am I not human?

Even the direct physical stimuli necessary to get an erection, or to stimulate sex organs in general, to get the necessary chemicals to release and so on is dictated on a social level. If sex does not conform to fantasy, it just doesn't fucking work. Sex isn't about "pressing the right buttons" entirely. It;s how you do this in approximation to the conscious/subconscious articulation. hence why people speak of "moves" - to be vulgar.

This is basic logic any 9 year old can decipher. Major K. dumbs us all down by even speaking of this SHIT.


One might also read up on the theories of the origin of sexual reproduction, and find that diversity is what is selected for, not pleasure.

How often do humans have sex compared to how often they reproduce? Does each human produce thousands of kids? Again, what you say is true for animals dictated by autonomous biological processes, but humans do not fall into this category. "Pleasure" itself is a silly concept, because one must ask what constitutes the basis of this pleasure, why it is pleasurable, and so on. And any idiot with an iota of experience in having sex can understand there is more to pleasure than just physical stimulation. Don't believe me? Try fucking someone while envisioning your grandmother. Tell me about how the prairie dog is burdened with the same wealth of sexual complexity.

Even for dolphins and bonobos sex is virtually a purely social act - its by-products, reproduction, are not even really regulated. You literally don't know shit about biology and it's painful. I'm not even an expert on such matters - this is a RUDIMENTARY understanding of biology we're talking about. Like do you actually know how COMPLEX humans are? No, fuck humans - do you know how COMPLEX a primate is? Do you know how much time has passed since it was "just about reproduction"?


Though perhaps single celled organisms experience a primitive form of pleasure when they incorporate one another

That is just as likely as single celled organisms not being able to fuck because their grandma accidentally walked in on them. No they don't experience "pleasure". Pleasure is a concept reserved for social animals, and no animal experiences pleasure as acutely and as greatly as humans. Why? because it's a human concept we project onto other animals. No doubt animals experience "pleasure", but it's not the same thing. Only humans, and perhaps bonobos and dolphins, can consciously seek out the fuilfilment of pleasure and reuglate their pleasures consciously. Other animals are merely dictated by instinct. to speak of human instincts is actually funny.


3) This is just as ridiculous as blaming guns for people shooting each other.

Lol?


It's also important to point out that I make no claims of human nature. I agree with you that if I would have said "The current social order is the way it is because of human nature", then I would be reactionary and conservative. This is not what I claimed though.

That's not what you fucking claimed. You LITERALLY LINKED AN EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY PAPER. YOU ARE MAKING PRETENSES TO HUMAN NATURE. If you are not, then take back all the worthless bullshit you said. Unless you want to "ethically justify" them, which you have already failed in doing. take away this essentialism, and it is impossible to justify these, because their reproduction is contingent upon people believing they are inevitable or "natural". Every scumfuck frat boy must narrativize his experiences in such a way - so much for "Oh just young men' dictated by their hormone's n bein' men n stuff".


So I doubt the significant impact any social order could have on human aspects that are more fundamental to humanity than said social order. You might as well try and abolish respiration.

So female submissiveness is just as necessary for our survival as respiration. But you haven't established this, in fact, what you say is actually fucking stupid. Are you literally just THAT narrow in your imagination that you cannot imagine humans surviving without the present sexual order in place?


In what world are you living in?

A world where we are not intimidated by papers which appear to be "scientific" but are actually easily dismissable just by glancing over them. No, sorry, your paper is absolute fucking bullshit even by its own merits. Humans do not, and cannot actually perceive "fertility" in females. This remains unproven as an assertion, by merit of pure empirical evidence there is no reason to think it true.



I don't know why so many of you think I'm hating on dominant women. They exist. However, they are obviously not the norm.

Is their irregularity owed to any kind of genetic mishap where they are not really "human"? If so, show us the genes, please.


There is a normal range that women occupy on the submissive/dominant spectrum and if you go too far in either direction it's less likely your genes will continue on. I'm not making a moral judgement here or claiming that this is right or wrong. Just describing what I see.

You know, you're so stupid that I actually feel bad for going hard on you. Like this is incredibly shocking stuff. When animals gravitate from a norm, it is because of a genetic mutation of some sort, or some kind of innate anomaly. This has yet to be established for the women in question. But you claim that "it's less likely your genes will continue on". Do women care about their genes? if so, how do you measure that? I don't give a fuck about my genes, what's wrong with me, buddy? You don't even understand how genetics work. genes don't "care" about being passed on, they do not have agency or will. Some genes survive, and others don't by merit of proximity.

In human societies, one cannot speak of "passing on genes" with a straight face, for the "passing on of genes" (the by-product of reproduction, not its basis. Otherwise, genes would have proceeded life - which is hilariously stupid) is subordinate to the reproduction of the existing order. Otherwise, perhaps humanity wouldn't have been on the brink of nuclear annihilation during the bay of pigs crisis and perhaps the mass decimation and destruction which occurred in both world wars would not have happened. When Alexander besieged a near eastern city state I forget which one - the people valiantly showed they would rather starve and die than capitulate. Alexander was moved by this and lifted the siege. Tell me how this act by the city-state's inhabitants cared about "passing on da genes"?

Islamist suicide bombers? What about them? Are they just prickly because they can't get in a good fucking, or what?

Or tell me again about how these aren't "the norms". Kiddo, you're speaking about INNATE PHYSIOLOGICAL INEVITABILITIES. If it isn't the norm, that must reflect at the level of physiology. Was this city state just not human or something, in your mind?


Last time I checked, lesbians weren't reproducing sexually.

Check mate, Quail! Lesbians don't reproduce sexually, lul, so dey don't count as women. Nevermind the lesbian couples who adopt who couldn't give less of a fuck about "passing on their genes". And bisexual women? But nevermind this. Are lesbians all infertile? That they are not reproducing sexually sais nothing about their capacity to reproduce. That is the point you're fucking dodging. You say that merely by merit of "reproducing" or being able to women are submissive. But is this a matter of will? If women have to actively be submissive, then how the fuck is this some kind of innate property?

Or is it just innate that men prefer submissive women? But Luis clearly doesn't. The fuck is wrong with him? Some kind of genetic anomaly, or what?

So let's review: There is no reason to think that women have to be "submissive" to engage in sexual behavior as far as physiology goes, or for the penetrative role to be conferred the status of power and dominance. These are all connotations conferred by our social order, not by any kind of innate physiological inevitabilities.

*EDIT: More drivel:


Inter-group competition is related to birth-rate. The more kids a group has, the more the group can propagate their genes and memes and survive.

Who knew that competition between classes, between nations and states took the form of a contest to see who can have the most fucking kids. Again, you're trying to pass off behaviors and activiites in the animal kingdom which are MEANINGLESS and PURELY dictated by proximity to some kind of big other. As if an animal is ACTUALLY thinking consciously, or motivated by some force, some law which whispers "have the most kids, have the most kids!" - but that is the worst kind of superstitious metaphysics, it is absolutely fucking abominably stupid to even consider. Again, you don't actually understand biology, that much is patently clear. Groups do not compete to see who can have the most kids - becuase groups do not care about passing their genes on. Societies care about reproducing the conditions of those societies, of PRODUCTION and life as it exists IN THE HERE AND NOW. There is no underlying metaphysical "thing" which justifies this, no god, no "durrr biology" which justifies it. It is sufficient unto itself, it has its own inner-logic. Saying that the social dimension is a "shadow" of the biological is just as scientific as saying the social dimension is made in god's image. It is NONSENSICAL.

Finally "memes", oh, oh my fucking god with this Dawkins' metaphysics: THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS AS MEMES. YOU MOTHERFUCKERS CONTINUALLY BERATE THE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES AND YET YOU CONCEIVE IDEOLOGY IN SUCH A JUVENILE FUCKING FASHION? MEMES? MEMES? WHAT KIND OF FUCKING WORLD DO I LIVE IN WHERE PEOPLE ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND IDEAS LIKE THIS? LIKE ARE YOU 9 YEARS OLD? What a barren fucking wasteland this world is, what philistinism predominates. Compare us to where we were at 200 years ago as far as the high intellectual sphere goes and we are eons regressed. "Memes" he sais. This is why Dawkins's Selfish gene is bullshit - not because adaptation does not occur at the level of genes, but because of the METAPHYSICAL implications it has incurred by mindlessly thinking with your ass.


Heterosexual sex is based in pre-social relations and has a deeper basis in the self-interest of the species

And there are no "pre-social" relations that remain for humans. Lacan dealt with this precisely - the mythological notion of a pre-linguistic universe for humans assumes there is balance between humans and the world around them. But there is none, humans CHANGE their own conditiosn of life and survival, regularly.


3) I don't give a damn about the continuation of the species myself, and abortion is no problemo to me. But I do give a damn about the continuation of myself, as does the species. It is inconsistent to talk about class psychology while ignoring the wider frame of homo sapiens sapiens psychology. This is a non-eliniminative reduction, but I think you guys might be thinking it is eliminative. If so, I think this is a valuable distinction to be aware of.

You care about the continuation of yourself, but what is "yourself"? What defines Major K.? Are you born with your identity, your consciousness, your means of articulating the world around you, your stupid fucking preferences, aspirations and goals in life? You are not. Defending the current social order of bourgeois ideologues is synonymous with "defending their own existence" because there is no physiological human you can abstract and claim is "defensible" - humans are nothing without the social dimension. Absolutely fucking nothing.


It's not a matter of how liberating I find them. In this case, it's a matter of child-rearing.

If women are not submissive, there can be no child rearing? Really? Even if it is more convenient for women to rear children, which is a baseless fucking assertion, this is a triviality and provisionality. The ontological gap between that which is inevitable (i.e. breasts for feeding milk to children, ETC.) and how we articulate it, respond to it, IS STILL THERE. It does not DEFINE the human being, it is just as much a convenience and triviality as having a fucking hammer. You can do what you want with a fucking hammer insofar as it is useful to you or the social order. That's all it means to be a human - it means to GET BY, to DEAL WITH SHIT as it is laid bare in front of you.


Let's not open that barrel of worms here. You'd be hard pressed to prove that the mind exists in the first place, after all.

No, let's open the fucking barrel of worms you degenerate rat. "prove" that the mind exists? If I have to prove that the mind exists, I have to prove to myself that I exist too, and that I am thinking. How do I prove that to myself? So understanding that species do not ACTUALLY care (BECAUSE CARING REFERS TO SOMETHING THAT IS DEEPLY ACTIVE, WILLFUL AND CONSCIOUS) about reproducing themselves, but do it by merit of proximity and instinct (instead of humans, who do it by merit of ritual) is a logical stepping stone to questioning the existence of hte mind itself? Oh my fucking god. Oh my god what a headache I have from this - can we all just agree to ignore Major K.? Please, let's just stop giving him attention. We dumb ourselves down so much by taking him seriously. Like the fact that we actually entertain these juvenile ideas is so fucking pathetic.

Sepcies do not care about anything, because caring is a social, and conscious category. ALL of these categories, mind you, are practical ones humans have made and use to understand the world around them in a PRACTICAL MATTER. It has nothing to do with unlocking the "secrets" of the universe. That is fucking ridiculous - the universe does not have "laws" in this sense - it does not have a mind, it does not care, it merely exists. Truth is only our practical approximation of it, and this is what we call existence. Scholastic metaphysics was apparently discarded by bourgoeis positivists in the 19th century, but the fact that we see this resurgence proves how degenerate capitalism has become.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I've notice you do this a lot Xhar-Xhar. Anytime people disagree with you you frame them as dogmatists and obviously less critical than you. This is an understandable defense mechanism, and often is probably a good time saver, but it is also reactionary. You are putting words in my mouth here for defamatory purposes.

What's amusing is that I'm pretty much an open opponent of RevLeft-style "anti-dogmatism", i.e. posting drivel to disguise the fact that you have no political positions worth talking about. The point is not that evo-psych is not critical, the point is that its adherents get from it precisely those same assumptions they put in, only in "scientific" garb now. I'm far from the first person to note this; people have taken notice of this since the heyday of evo-psych's predecessor, sociobiology. Then, as now, the cult adherents tried to deflect criticism by crying about how they were being persecuted by mean leftists.

But of course, they couldn't answer any of the criticism, just as you can't answer anything I have written now. Where is your data? Why do your eternal "trade-offs" just happen to correspond to social arrangements in capitalism?


It's not a matter of how liberating I find them. In this case, it's a matter of child-rearing.

And in socialism, children will be raised and educated, not by the family, which will not exist at this point, but by the institutions of socialist society. Therefore the "role" of the mother will disappear, as will all roles based on sex or gender. This has been pointed out several times. To this the only thing you can do is weakly say that no one really wants to abolish gender roles. Who are you trying to convince, us or yourself? In any case, we want to abolish gender roles. We will abolish gender roles. And that's it. It doesn't matter how much ad hoc hypotheses the evo-psych crowd puts out.


I don't know where you're going with this...

You started talking about the alleged role differential birthrates play in inter-group competition. First of all, if a higher birthrate meant that one group was more successful, workers would be more successful than the bourgeoisie. They're not. Second, why would we care about the competition of groups based on heredity? Our perspective is complete and utter apathy toward "our" ethnicity, race, homeland, nation and so on. As a Croat, the sooner all the Croat inbred islanders fuck other ethnicities until there are no more Croats, the better. A higher differential birth rate for the Croatian ethnicity would be a thing of complete apathy to me - were it not for the fact that in the modern society, higher birth rates mean grotesque oppression of women and homosexuals.


Come now... let's not be so low as to pretend such things. This type of talk discredits you more than it does me. Anyone who's read what I wrote with an open-mind and not just looking for parts to discredit because it doesn't agree with their preconceived notions will see that.

Listen darling, you don't get to write things like this:

"There is a political movement to put homosexuality on the same level as heterosexuality. Though I think homosexuality is harmless, and sometimes practice homosexual behaviors myself, it doesn't make sense to treat it the same as heterosexuality."

and then complain when people call you out on your homophobia. Oh, and you "practice homosexual behaviours yourself", as if that were some sort of magical +3 shield against criticism. There are plenty of gay quislings, and I have to admit I find them more revolting than homophobic straights. If this were a case of genuine misunderstanding you would explain yourself, just as you would explain your statements about society preventing women from "sleeping around". But you didn't. You're hell-bent on dragging this into the realms of airy-fairy metaphysics away from concrete political positions, but we won't let you.


Let's not open that barrel of worms here. You'd be hard pressed to prove that the mind exists in the first place, after all.

Indeed, one has difficulty believing the mind exists when reading certain threads on RevLeft. But it demonstrably does. Not the qualia nonsense of the idealists, but the behaviour we associate with having a mind. Humans exhibit that sort of behaviour, at least some of the time. The human species does not. In fact, unlike human society, which is a real entity with explanatory power, the human species is a complete abstraction outside the very specific context of biology.

[Major K.]

Wow, way to take it to the next level Rafiq !


Lot of stuff to parse through here... some of it is projections of what you assume my beliefs are or are for the sake of verbal heat (gotta know your audience ;)), while other parts are actually justifiable. In particular, I hadn't realized that I was intrinsically appealing to evolutionary biology in my argument. I'm still not sure that I am -- I'll have to think about that some more and get back to you.

The image I have in my head explaining the feminine role is paleolithic cave people walking through the snow in a line, with one of them pregnant, and the males carrying spears (pregnant lady can't fight well, cuz she's pregnant). It seems to me that those same roles are playing out in modern society but in different ways. I'm not arguing that it's how things should be or necessarily have to be, I'm trying to figure out how this whole puzzle fits together in the first place. I expressed my doubt earlier that roles don't transcend society, but your adamance suggests that such doubts are blasphemous and mindless.

Maybe something has fundamentally changed since those types of civilizations that I'm failing to take account of that totally change the game.

I'll share with y'all the essay when I finish it -- and I'll try and use some of your guys' feedback in it too.

Thanks for all your replies, and I'm looking forward reading how you tear my essay to shreds! My main interest here is to learn.

-Major K.

P.S. I am by nature a rather neutral person in terms of dominance/submission. However, I have learned that in sexual relationships with women, most women WANT you to be dominant. It's not just a matter of simple oppression, or if it is, it's self-reinforcing. If you're not dominant, the lover dynamic disappears. And they don't want to have to ask you to be more dominant either. They want to feel safe that you know what's good for them better than even they do. It sounds simplistic, but if you want to have sex, that's the kind of behavior women predominantly respond to, especially during ovulation.

[Rafiq]

Perhaps, Major, you are getting ahead of yourself in dismissively trying to condense phenomena which is so irreducibly complex into simplistic metaphysical narratives? For example, you say "those types of civilizations". But humans, who have existed for 200,000 years, have only organized themselves into civilizations since after the Neolithic. You talk about "changing the game" but there is no game to begin with - you are taking aspects of human societies as inevitable ontological givens. I have shown you that you are wrong for doing so.

But fine, go ahead. I await your essay. I expect it to address the arguments at hand.


I am by nature a rather neutral person in terms of dominance/submission. However, I have learned that in sexual relationships with women, most women WANT you to be dominant. It's not just a matter of simple oppression, or if it is, it's self-reinforcing. If you're not dominant, the lover dynamic disappears. And they don't want to have to ask you to be more dominant either. They want to feel safe that you know what's good for them better than even they do. It sounds simplistic, but if you want to have sex, that's the kind of behavior women predominantly respond to, especially during ovulation.

Here we go again with "ovulation" myths, which I actually directly dealt with a few months ago on this very forum. Some studies find that women, for example, have greater sex drives during their period, precisely when they cannot reproduce. But let's forget that.

No one is denying that most women tend to want "dominant" men, or plainly put, men who conform to their gender role properly. I already told you - no one thinks it is a "simple" matter of direct oppression, all slaves must be complacent in their own slavery somehow and in some way. Women tend to prefer men who conform to their gender role precisely because, again, the linguistic phallus signifies sexual difference. What that means is that if a man does not conform to his gender role as the signifier of sexual difference, as a GENDERED man, then women don't feel like they're properly a woman at all - of course they wouldn't be attracted to them. I actually went over this in my response if you were even paying attention. If one's gender is defined by its contingency and dependency upon another gender in society, THEN OF COURSE the expression of this gender on the level of sexuality is going to relate to that. Again, this is basically common sense.

None of these are, however, inevitabilities owed to biology or physiology. They are learned. A man has to learn to properly conform to his gender. I went over this thorouhgly. "Will" has nothing to do with it, "will" is malleable. What matters are the relations of power at play here.

[Major K.]

To Xhar-Xhar:

Okay, I said I had "practiced homosexual behavior" because I thought I'd throw you a bone to get off this tangent, thinking you were like the typical superficial, reactionary feminist type I've met. I'm glad you're not.

To hopefully give you some closure: homophobia is a terrible name for my attitude. Just cuz I view homosexual behavior as categorically different from sexual behavior (behavior with the possibility of leading to baby creation), doesn't mean I'm scared of homosexuals. Honestly, for me it's a non-issue. Like anal sex. Or skiing. Go ahead, do what you want. What do I care.

Same with sleeping around. Earlier I was describing society, not judging it. I noted that it is understandable why such middle-way type social regulations have emerged. As Rafiq gets into, there are grounds to doubt that there is any necessity for such social and even (the dubiously extant) biological regulations of the human race. Just think of the possibilities!

K.

[Quail]

To Xhar-Xhar:

Okay, I said I had "practiced homosexual behavior" because I thought I'd throw you a bone to get off this tangent, thinking you were like the typical superficial, reactionary feminist type I've met. I'm glad you're not.

To hopefully give you some closure: homophobia is a terrible name for my attitude. Just cuz I view homosexual behavior as categorically different from sexual behavior (behavior with the possibility of leading to baby creation), doesn't mean I'm scared of homosexuals. Honestly, for me it's a non-issue. Like anal sex. Or skiing. Go ahead, do what you want. What do I care.

Same with sleeping around. Earlier I was describing society, not judging it. I noted that it is understandable why such middle-way type social regulations have emerged. As Rafiq gets into, there are grounds to doubt that there is any necessity for such social and even (the dubiously extant) biological regulations of the human race. Just think of the possibilities!

K.

I don't see as it's really that different. Most straight couples use contraception these days, so the purpose of sex is just to have fun and get close to each other emotionally... which incidentally is the same reason queer people have sex.

[John Nada]

Lot of stuff to parse through here... some of it is projections of what you assume my beliefs are or are for the sake of verbal heat (gotta know your audience ;)), while other parts are actually justifiable. In particular, I hadn't realized that I was intrinsically appealing to evolutionary biology in my argument. I'm still not sure that I am -- I'll have to think about that some more and get back to you.You project what your words portray, where you claim to know the name of it or not.
The image I have in my head explaining the feminine role is paleolithic cave people walking through the snow in a line, with one of them pregnant, and the males carrying spears (pregnant lady can't fight well, cuz she's pregnant). It seems to me that those same roles are playing out in modern society but in different ways. I'm not arguing that it's how things should be or necessarily have to be, I'm trying to figure out how this whole puzzle fits together in the first place. I expressed my doubt earlier that roles don't transcend society, but your adamance suggests that such doubts are blasphemous and mindless.That image in your head is just that, an image built up in your head. Women can also hunt and everyone can gather and scavenge, with the latter two predominating. The alpha-male slaying saber-tooth tigers and mammoths so women wants his babies is modern fiction. In fact, it could easy be viewed as a less noble job(or "submissive") than raising children. If anything spears would make it easier for women to hunt.There's facts, hunter-gather societies did not have modern capitalist gender roles and were comparatively egalitarian, and there's subjective beliefs, that the gender roles under the patriarchy are "human nature".
Maybe something has fundamentally changed since those types of civilizations that I'm failing to take account of that totally change the game.The fundamental change is thousands of years, different modes of production, technology, actual history, and heteronormative and patriachial prejudices clouding your arguement.
P.S. I am by nature a rather neutral person in terms of dominance/submission. However, I have learned that in sexual relationships with women, most women WANT you to be dominant. It's not just a matter of simple oppression, or if it is, it's self-reinforcing. If you're not dominant, the lover dynamic disappears. And they don't want to have to ask you to be more dominant either. They want to feel safe that you know what's good for them better than even they do. It sounds simplistic, but if you want to have sex, that's the kind of behavior women predominantly respond to, especially during ovulation.How do LGBTQ people get laid, if it has to be a dominate male and submissive female? And how the fuck does anyone both know and give a fuck if the woman is ovulating?<br /><br />That is your subjective opinion, possibly on what you guess the women you know believe. And this not only differs from individual bias, but cultures and people where that's absolutely not the case.
Okay, I said I had "practiced homosexual behavior" because I thought I'd throw you a bone to get off this tangent, thinking you were like the typical superficial, reactionary feminist type I've met. I'm glad you're not.:glare: Your brocialism is showing. And that's being generous.
To hopefully give you some closure: homophobia is a terrible name for my attitude. Just cuz I view homosexual behavior as categorically different from sexual behavior (behavior with the possibility of leading to baby creation), doesn't mean I'm scared of homosexuals. Honestly, for me it's a non-issue. Like anal sex. Or skiing. Go ahead, do what you want. What do I care.The "I'm not a homophobe because homos don't scare me!" is exactly what a homophobe says, like "I'm not racist but..".Phobia also means aversion and homophobia clearly means anti-LGBTQ attitudes and beliefs. That you compare homosexuality to skiing(AFAIK no one's born with skiing as part of who they are and killed for being a skier) is telling. Worse you rate sexual orientation based on its supposed utility. This is petty-bourgeois liberalism.
Same with sleeping around. Earlier I was describing society, not judging it. I noted that it is understandable why such middle-way type social regulations have emerged. As Rafiq gets into, there are grounds to doubt that there is any necessity for such social and even (the dubiously extant) biological regulations of the human race. Just think of the possibilities!Post-modernism's "there is no truth, everything's equally right" is bullshit. Not all ideas are right. You're premise is based on essentialism and determinism which justifies the heteronormative patriarchy as a timeless truth. And you not framing it as all social constructs, but biological truths by claiming it's for "diversity" "fit mates" "viable offspring" and "survival of the species".

It is not, for the modern family did not exist for most of human existence. There was no DNA tests to determine paternity. Children were raised by the whole community, not just the biological parents. It would be impossible to know that the genes would supposedly line up with modern capitalist society. So it is not "human nature" that drives sexism, but the supersturcture of capitalism, a creation of people's minds not biology.

[BIXX]

I want to say we were all successfully trolled but I'm not sure if the op is actually trolling or if they're actually unable to think.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

To Xhar-Xhar:

Okay, I said I had "practiced homosexual behavior" because I thought I'd throw you a bone to get off this tangent, thinking you were like the typical superficial, reactionary feminist type I've met. I'm glad you're not.

To hopefully give you some closure: homophobia is a terrible name for my attitude. Just cuz I view homosexual behavior as categorically different from sexual behavior (behavior with the possibility of leading to baby creation), doesn't mean I'm scared of homosexuals. Honestly, for me it's a non-issue. Like anal sex. Or skiing. Go ahead, do what you want. What do I care.

Same with sleeping around. Earlier I was describing society, not judging it. I noted that it is understandable why such middle-way type social regulations have emerged. As Rafiq gets into, there are grounds to doubt that there is any necessity for such social and even (the dubiously extant) biological regulations of the human race. Just think of the possibilities!

K.

First of all, I'm not any sort of feminist, unless you think "feminism" is synonymous with "women's liberation". The ICL-FI, the organisation with which my political sympathies lie, does not. They reject feminism as not going far enough when it comes to the liberation of women and the revolutionary abolition of the family, in addition to the class-collaborationist aspect and so on.

Oh, and you're not scared of homosexuals. Good for you (you should be, as we're coming for the family, we're coming for you dominant males and your swords that probably haven't seen a sheath in quite some time with that attitude, and so on). You still explicitly said that you oppose what you imagine to be a "political movement to put homosexuality on the same level as heterosexuality". And each time you try to "explain" this you end up digging yourself further. Not to mention you haven't actually responded to most things people have written here.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I want to say we were all successfully trolled but I'm not sure if the op is actually trolling or if they're actually unable to think.
I vote for the latter, based on past experiences with men making similar arguments.

[Luís Henrique]

Last time I checked, lesbians weren't reproducing sexually.

If they aren't reproducing sexually, then either, a) this isn't a genetically hereditary trait, or b) they will quickly become extinct.

But as their numbers don't seem to be dwindling, I think it is easy to see that b) above is false, and consequently a) is true.

And that is the problem with "evolutionary psychology": it intends to find genetic, and consequently evolutionary, causes for human behaviours that are quite obviously not evolutionary or genetic.


I don't know why so many of you think I'm hating on dominant women. They exist. However, they are obviously not the norm. I was careful to use words like "mostly" in my first post to avoid people thinking they can dismiss what I'm saying because of outliers.

I don't think you hate dominant women, or lesbians, or women who like anal sex or who like to swallow. I think your line of reasoning would imply that those people don't exist, either as the norm, or as a numerically important deviation from the norm.

Or what would be, in your reckoning, the reason for the existence of dominant women? A recurring mutation?

Because in my opinion, they exist because dominance/submissiveness aren't genetic traits.

Luís Henrique

[Redistribute the Rep]

First of all, I'm not any sort of feminist, unless you think "feminism" is synonymous with "women's liberation". The ICL-FI, the organisation with which my political sympathies lie, does not. They reject feminism as not going far enough when it comes to the liberation of women and the revolutionary abolition of the family, in addition to the class-collaborationist aspect and so on.

Can you just put this in your signature already? I can't be the only one who's tired of seeing this repeated so many times.

@Major K: in addition to what others have said, you've also got to think outside of sex, there's way more to gender relations than that. Would an asexual woman be submissive? Perhaps, as she might find it easier to socially accepted and advance in her career if she's not too "bossy." Or, she might have to be financially dependent on her husband. Either way, this submissiveness doesn't come from a biological instinct to reproduce, it's a product of having to function in a capitalist and patriarchal society.

[Major K.]

If the mode of production determines the types of rituals people can act out, then as long as capitalism is the dominant form of socio-economic organization, all social rituals are fundamentally sub-rituals to the grand ritual of the capitalist dance.

To be aware of this you perhaps become instead of a contented consumer, a frustrated producer, with no clearly viable outlets for his desire to produce besides the still subsumed but potentially liberating action of opposing that capitalist dance in all possible aspects of ones life that one can (thus, through radicalization).

In the domain of sexuality, capitalism degrades it by commodifying it and imposing the pathology of the smoothly running business as the ideal type of social relationship and through the reinforcement of behavior that is most efficient for commodity production (or, firstly, maintaining the social order, and secondly, optimizing it for commodity production).

What alternative rituals then are available for the anti-capitalist raised in a capitalist world with deep-set, psychologically capitalistic conditioning? Must one choose celibacy in a world where sexuality is so widely commodified? Abandoning rituals altogether would mean total social death. What options does the determined anti-capitalist have ritualistically? Could sex be subsumed for him (or her) as a way of mutual liberation? That's what Tantra seems to be largely about...

Major K.

P.S. Many of you seem to think it's a matter of a male master/female slave relationship that's the problem, but if it's the system of production that's ritualizing the gender roles as such (as some of you have also proposed -- with whom I agree), then the concept of patriarchy and the opposition of it misses the point. It's not a gender issue at all -- it's an issue of the modes of production, and both genders are coerced to play out the roles that are shaped by the mode of production (plz don't tell me the modes of production are gendered... that's an obvious rationalization. You can say there're more men at the top, but if you look down you find more men at the bottom too. It's more a matter of how capitalism uses men -- i.e., encourages them to take greater risks). Changing the roles around is just shuffling around the status of the victims (slaves) of widespread oppression. Only after capitalism ends would it make sense to focus on reorganizing gender dynamics (and then it might not even be necessary). Right now this shuffling about seems to actually be hurting labor {e.g. women coerced into the industrial labor force, widespread wage reductions, increased bureaucratization, etc. -- but maybe in the long run that's a good thing, as it could speed up the process of capital deflation (I don't think that's the right term, so hopefully one of you can remind me of the right one here)?}.

[RedWorker]

Reply to Rafiq's post.

[Major K.]

I was going to wait to just post the article, but since I've been pretty lazy about getting into the meat of my argument with you guys, I figured I'd give y'all a breakdown here instead:

The key to unwrapping this puzzle is looking at hormones, in particular testosterone. I noticed Rafiq talking about men who behave as women in prison, etc. In these cases, you'd want to pay attention to the winner effect:

-sciencedirect[dot]com/science/article/pii/S0018506X05000978
-sciencedirect[dot]com/science/article/pii/0018506X89900421
-sciencedirect[dot]com/science/article/pii/0018506X9290016O

To quote from that last one:

“In two experiments, male college students either won or lost $5 on a task controlled entirely by chance. In both studies, winners reported a more positive mood change than did losers and, in Experiment 2, winners reported a more positive mood change than a neutral group that did not win or lose money. After the task was completed, winners exhibited significantly higher testosterone levels than losers. Levels of cortisol, a hormone associated with stress and arousal, did not differ among the groups, suggesting that a hormone-behavior response pattern for winning and losing is specific to testosterone. These data suggest that winning can alter testosterone levels in men and that mood may mediate such changes."

What happens as an individual submits (male or female) is that testosterone levels drop. As testosterone drops, the individual becomes more empathetic and nurturing. It's a good adaptation for ensuring that weaker individuals don't get killed or eviscerated by stronger ones; when you're beaten and you know it, submit.

This also happens within committed monogamous relationships - men's testosterone falls by about half in this case, which is why you see so many men become "beta-ized" - the guy who was able to easily maintain firm control over his woman at the start of the relationship, when he was charged with dominance-inspiring testosterone, is no longer able to once he only has half as much T.

Meanwhile, women are also presumably subject to this, and as they pile up wins, they become more masculinized, less empathetic, and more dominant.

Alternately, if you're the dominant guy, in the context of relationships, I can tell you every time I have a fight with a girlfriend, after I win (and I always do), the girl immediately becomes more submissive, and this is sexually arousing for both of us. It's why makeup sex is so hot - the girl submits to the man, and the man recognizes her submission and takes her. I have to make conscious efforts to not beat women down too far in fights and general relationship maintenance to avoid getting a kind of "reverse betaization" going on where the woman submits too completely and becomes boring to me.

That said, it does seem to be possible for men and women to get off sexually with the roles reversed - e.g., dominatrices, men who enjoy pegging, etc. It's a mindset shift, where the woman finds pleasure in dominating, and the man pleasure in submitting. Thing is, I don't think these people reproduce a whole lot - I have a hard time imagining a dominatrix really wanting her b*tch boy to rail the living shit out of her. Instead, she'll want to put her strap-on on and ream his anus, and let another man who makes her submit be the one who inseminates her, while b*tch boy watches and wanks.

The reason for the arguments we’re having in this thread is that some folks are coming in and saying, "It's nature" while others are saying, "No, fool, it's nurture", when the truth is it's a mix of both. Women are more naturally nurturing and submissive while men are more naturally expansionary and conquering, and each sex is better at these roles than the other sex - the chance of ever getting a female Alexander the Great is probably infinitesimally low even if you turned all of Planet Earth into the Mosou. When women are in charge, they just don't want to conquer - they want equality and caretaking. You just have to look at woman-run societies versus man-run societies to see the difference. However, where on the spectrum people occupy has to do with their roles in society and the cultures they're part of. There are plenty of women in the modern U.S. who are more dominant than many of the men here, hands down.

Anyway, by reading through Rafiq's post, you can see how much of a limb he's going out on to try to prove the unprovable, based on his level of rage alone.

He's doing all kinds of weird things like calling non-social animals experiencing pleasure impossible (science's verdict: still out), and female changes during ovulation "myth" (science's verdict: I have read loads of studies to the contrary, have written about this before, and can provide them for those who are interested). I don't like to resort to calling names too much, but this guy Rafiq's a windbag. However, don't take that to mean there's no nurture/environmental element; there is, and it's a big one.

The question of submission/domination is ultimately a complicated one, but you can boil it down to hormones, which are influenced by nature (are you male? +testosterone. Were you exposed to more testosterone in the womb? +testosterone) and nurture (are you in a society that forces women to submit? -testosterone if you're a woman, +testosterone if you're a man. Are you interacting with people who are beating you down? -testosterone). The higher your testosterone, caused by both genetic and environmental factors, the more dominant you will be, and the less submissive. The lower your testosterone, the more submissive you will be, and the less dominant.

Females are naturally more nurturing, males are naturally more conquest-driven. You see it in children, you see it in all kinds of hormonal stuff, etc.

At the same time, a lot of manosphere-type men have an overblown idea about how naturally submissive women are programmed to be, and how naturally dominant men are. There are plenty of women who boss their mates around in every culture, and women fight tooth-and-nail to be the boss of the home in virtually every culture (and frequently win).

I'd once again suggest giving Roy F. Baumeister's address Is There Anything Good About Men? a read if you haven't seen it already. He's a researcher who swung from one-time feminist to more of a naturalistic/functional view on male/female roles in society. It's enlightening:

denisdutton[dot]com/baumeister.htm

-Major K.

[Counterculturalist]

This also happens within committed monogamous relationships - men's testosterone falls by about half in this case, which is why you see so many men become "beta-ized" - the guy who was able to easily maintain firm control over his woman at the start of the relationship, when he was charged with dominance-inspiring testosterone, is no longer able to once he only has half as much T.

Meanwhile, women are also presumably subject to this, and as they pile up wins, they become more masculinized, less empathetic, and more dominant.

Alternately, if you're the dominant guy, in the context of relationships, I can tell you every time I have a fight with a girlfriend, after I win (and I always do), the girl immediately becomes more submissive, and this is sexually arousing for both of us. It's why makeup sex is so hot - the girl submits to the man, and the man recognizes her submission and takes her. I have to make conscious efforts to not beat women down too far in fights and general relationship maintenance to avoid getting a kind of "reverse betaization" going on where the woman submits too completely and becomes boring to me.

Cool story. This strikes me as the ramblings of somebody who knows he's an insufferable, abusive piece of shit and tries to appeal to "biology" to justify it.

[RedWorker]

What happens as an individual submits (male or female) is that testosterone levels drop. As testosterone drops, the individual becomes more empathetic and nurturing. It's a good adaptation for ensuring that weaker individuals don't get killed or eviscerated by stronger ones; when you're beaten and you know it, submit.

1. In many scenarios, losers observably become more 'dominant'. For example, people who rage hard when they lose at video games. The Dunning-Kruger effect also is relevant here: people with less ability are simply more confident, assertive, 'dominant' than those who have greater ability.
2. What does loss have to do with submitting?

Which brings me to a greater point: How the fuck did you come up with the arbitrary categories of 'dominance', 'submission', etc.? Basically, losing at a game means you submit to someone? You have no means to properly define and quantify this, you're pulling these terms and describing the interaction between them, the context to this, etc. out of your ass.


This also happens within committed monogamous relationships - men's testosterone falls by about half in this case, which is why you see so many men become "beta-ized" - the guy who was able to easily maintain firm control over his woman at the start of the relationship, when he was charged with dominance-inspiring testosterone, is no longer able to once he only has half as much T.

You must be freaking kidding me. "Maintain firm control over his woman". LMFAO. In a relationship? You think

What you do not fucking understand is that the female gender role is one of "dominance" in a way, of the housewife telling the husband what to do and organizing the household and family realm, even though this exists in the context of a sexist totality (meaning the sexist totality which puts men as the rulers) and the man is the one who takes the important decisions.

In a similar way, women are the "gatekeepers", and men "must appeal to this". Qualifying the average relationship that exists within our sexist totality of today as "the man maintaining firm control over his woman" is fucking moronic, fails to analyze what's actually behind.


Meanwhile, women are also presumably subject to this, and as they pile up wins, they become more masculinized, less empathetic, and more dominant.

Right, women go to the arcade, get a few rounds under their belt in Street Fighter II and then go home and tell. You must be freaking kidding me. Who the fuck even analyses from this viewpoint?

What you also do not understand is that "masculine" is a gender role that holds no relationship to actually being male or female. "Masculine" has characteristics of dominance and is assigned to males now because males dominate the society of today.


Alternately, if you're the dominant guy, in the context of relationships, I can tell you every time I have a fight with a girlfriend, after I win (and I always do), the girl immediately becomes more submissive, and this is sexually arousing for both of us. It's why makeup sex is so hot - the girl submits to the man, and the man recognizes her submission and takes her. I have to make conscious efforts to not beat women down too far in fights and general relationship maintenance to avoid getting a kind of "reverse betaization" going on where the woman submits too completely and becomes boring to me.

This information and the way you presented it is exactly the missing evidence that was needed to come to the conclusion that your personality simply is damaged. I mean - who the fuck is able to write this and pass it off as something that is not only entirely regular but in fact defining "what's normal"? You present this to us as "reality", but you need a fucking reality check, because even within the sexist totality of today what you write here would not be seen as normal.

What you do not fucking understand is that the female gender role is one of winning these arguments, one of "dominating" the man in such scenarios. That's why usually so many men speak of being terrified of their wife and having to sort out his activities according to her rules, even though this exists within the sexist totality where men are dominant, this is in fact entirely consistent.

What you also do not understand is that what is common within the sexist totality is the woman being the gatekeeper and the man being sent to the sofa after fights, and denied sex (which is evidently a fucked up view of sexuality, gender roles, and a lot of more concepts). How are you unable to miss this basic shit?

But really, your whole rambling here reveals that a) you are deluded, b) your personality is damaged, c) this probably also applies to your relationship partners, if what you say here is true.

That said, it does seem to be possible for men and women to get off sexually with the roles reversed - e.g., dominatrices, men who enjoy pegging, etc. It's a mindset shift, where the woman finds pleasure in dominating, and the man pleasure in submitting.

Sure, but this exists precisely because of the thrill of being dominated by someone who is supposedly weak. Precisely, this kind of phenomena is entirely determined by sexist gender roles today, of men's domination and women's submission, not the opposite.


Thing is, I don't think these people reproduce a whole lot

So fucking what? Neither do most heterosexual couples. Only a minor fraction of sex is about reproduction, and even then it's not really sex, it's routine trying to generate a child and can't even really be categorized as "sex" in the context of today. Precisely, the exact meaning of "sex" today, its social relevance and context, etc. involves the exclusion of reproduction. Think about this.


I have a hard time imagining a dominatrix really wanting her b*tch boy to rail the living shit out of her. Instead, she'll want to put her strap-on on and ream his anus, and let another man who makes her submit be the one who inseminates her, while b*tch boy watches and wanks.

Which confirms my fucking point above, about "women's domination" as portrayed in porn today really being determined by the context of a sexist totality where men dominate, not the opposite. You need to learn to think beyond one fucking layer. I ask you genuinely -- have you even bothered to think? How the fuck can you miss so much evident stuff? Your argumentation framework here, the way you engage with these concepts, simply is plainly dumbfounding.


The reason for the arguments we’re having in this thread is that some folks are coming in and saying, "It's nature" while others are saying, "No, fool, it's nurture", when the truth is it's a mix of both. Women are more naturally nurturing and submissive while men are more naturally expansionary and conquering, and each sex is better at these roles than the other sex - the chance of ever getting a female Alexander the Great is probably infinitesimally low even if you turned all of Planet Earth into the Mosou.

And what evidence is there for this? Fucking nothing. It's something you're coming with out of your ass. Evidently, within a sexist totality "Alexander the Greats" are men. Let's fucking think of something: 100% of politicians were men. Now, in many places, more than 50% of them are woman, and in fact this is even starting to be seen as "something womanly", a "social task". We had Bismarck, but now we have fucking Merkel. And she does not act different than a man would. She is the representative of this oppressive system and excels at it. Again - do you fucking think?


When women are in charge, they just don't want to conquer - they want equality and caretaking. You just have to look at woman-run societies versus man-run societies to see the difference. However, where on the spectrum people occupy has to do with their roles in society and the cultures they're part of. There are plenty of women in the modern U.S. who are more dominant than many of the men here, hands down.

My fucking God. This just reeks so much of fucking idealism. Do you think the personality characteristics of a fucking individual put in charge of a system (who in fact is just a representative and can't alter how this system works) REALLY determines anything? You need to fucking study the basics of what Marx said, because even if it was completely wrong, you don't even fucking know what Marxists argue, or what they claim, so how could you criticize this? Again, fucking Merkel.


The question of submission/domination is ultimately a complicated one, but you can boil it down to hormones, which are influenced by nature (are you male? +testosterone. Were you exposed to more testosterone in the womb? +testosterone) and nurture (are you in a society that forces women to submit? -testosterone if you're a woman, +testosterone if you're a man. Are you interacting with people who are beating you down? -testosterone). The higher your testosterone, caused by both genetic and environmental factors, the more dominant you will be, and the less submissive. The lower your testosterone, the more submissive you will be, and the less dominant.

Honestly, this is really fucking cute, the worship of measuring shit such as "testosterone". Let's take a society where women are trained to submit, then they watch porn where men dominate women, and their pussy becomes wet. You measure this wetness and come to the conclusion "oh, look, it's in-built, there is wetness". "This means women are made for submission". Except in the context of a society where women are trained to dominate then maybe their pussies would become wet by porn where women dominate men. Fucking think.


Females are naturally more nurturing, males are naturally more conquest-driven. You see it in children, you see it in all kinds of hormonal stuff, etc.

You see all of this in the sexist totality of today. It really fucking proves nothing.

[Major K.]

To quote Baumeister:


"The first big, basic difference has to do with what I consider to be the most underappreciated fact about gender. Consider this question: What percent of our ancestors were women?

It’s not a trick question, and it’s not 50%. True, about half the people who ever lived were women, but that’s not the question. We’re asking about all the people who ever lived who have a descendant living today. Or, put another way, yes, every baby has both a mother and a father, but some of those parents had multiple children.

Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.

I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.

Right now our field is having a lively debate about how much behavior can be explained by evolutionary theory. But if evolution explains anything at all, it explains things related to reproduction, because reproduction is at the heart of natural selection. Basically, the traits that were most effective for reproduction would be at the center of evolutionary psychology. It would be shocking if these vastly different reproductive odds for men and women failed to produce some personality differences.

For women throughout history (and prehistory), the odds of reproducing have been pretty good. Later in this talk we will ponder things like, why was it so rare for a hundred women to get together and build a ship and sail off to explore unknown regions, whereas men have fairly regularly done such things? But taking chances like that would be stupid, from the perspective of a biological organism seeking to reproduce. They might drown or be killed by savages or catch a disease. For women, the optimal thing to do is go along with the crowd, be nice, play it safe. The odds are good that men will come along and offer sex and you’ll be able to have babies. All that matters is choosing the best offer. We’re descended from women who played it safe.

For men, the outlook was radically different. If you go along with the crowd and play it safe, the odds are you won’t have children. Most men who ever lived did not have descendants who are alive today. Their lines were dead ends. Hence it was necessary to take chances, try new things, be creative, explore other possibilities. Sailing off into the unknown may be risky, and you might drown or be killed or whatever, but then again if you stay home you won’t reproduce anyway. We’re most descended from the type of men who made the risky voyage and managed to come back rich. In that case he would finally get a good chance to pass on his genes. We’re descended from men who took chances (and were lucky).

The huge difference in reproductive success very likely contributed to some personality differences, because different traits pointed the way to success. Women did best by minimizing risks, whereas the successful men were the ones who took chances. Ambition and competitive striving probably mattered more to male success (measured in offspring) than female. Creativity was probably more necessary, to help the individual man stand out in some way. Even the sex drive difference was relevant: For many men, there would be few chances to reproduce and so they had to be ready for every sexual opportunity. If a man said “not today, I have a headache,” he might miss his only chance.

Another crucial point. The danger of having no children is only one side of the male coin. Every child has a biological mother and father, and so if there were only half as many fathers as mothers among our ancestors, then some of those fathers had lots of children.

Look at it this way. Most women have only a few children, and hardly any have more than a dozen — but many fathers have had more than a few, and some men have actually had several dozen, even hundreds of kids.

In terms of the biological competition to produce offspring, then, men outnumbered women both among the losers and among the biggest winners.

To put this in more subjective terms: When I walk around and try to look at men and women as if seeing them for the first time, it’s hard to escape the impression (sorry, guys!) that women are simply more likeable and lovable than men. (This I think explains the “WAW effect” mentioned earlier.) Men might wish to be lovable, and men can and do manage to get women to love them (so the ability is there), but men have other priorities, other motivations. For women, being lovable was the key to attracting the best mate. For men, however, it was more a matter of beating out lots of other men even to have a chance for a mate.

Tradeoffs again: perhaps nature designed women to seek to be lovable, whereas men were designed to strive, mostly unsuccessfully, for greatness.

And it was worth it, even despite the “mostly unsuccessfully” part. Experts estimate Genghis Khan had several hundred and perhaps more than a thousand children. He took big risks and eventually conquered most of the known world. For him, the big risks led to huge payoffs in offspring. My point is that no woman, even if she conquered twice as much territory as Genghis Khan, could have had a thousand children. Striving for greatness in that sense offered the human female no such biological payoff. For the man, the possibility was there, and so the blood of Genghis Khan runs through a large segment of today’s human population. By definition, only a few men can achieve greatness, but for the few men who do, the gains have been real. And we are descended from those great men much more than from other men. Remember, most of the mediocre men left no descendants at all."

[Major K.]

P.S. What conceivable evidence would you accept as sufficient proof that nature plays a significant role in human behavior? If you can't think of any, that might be the problem.

[Hatshepsut]

1) The evolutionary basis of sexual reproduction and the inherent submissiveness of the maternal/feminine role...

For the evolution, go back two or three billion years to when a pair of prokaryotic cells first extended pili toward each other to exchange DNA.

I'm not even under the impression that women are submissive to begin with. None of the ladies I've met have been particularly so. Especially the women cops. A nurturing stance toward children, sometimes extended to adults as well, hardly constitutes inherent submissiveness. All people of course defer to those higher on ladders of social or physical strength when directly interacting, but because they must, not because they prefer to.

Biology and genes do exert fundamental influences on the behavior of organisms, including people. But these are indirect and generally poorly understood. After all, genes code for proteins, not personalities. All genetic effects on human behavior are heavily filtered through social systems and language, which augment the genetic endowment with considerable flexibility. More information is stored in the brain than in the DNA, and yet more information in the culture than in the brains. These additional forms of information are just as transmissible as genes are; in fact they can be modified much faster than can genes. Hence evolution in human beings today proceeds largely through cultural channels.

[Rafiq]

Before we begin, let us take a moment to appreciate the fact that upon being demanded to actually respond, Major K, like any intellectual coward, has decided to indirectly respond to me while attempting to encircle the point at hand. Of course, this will not make a difference in the course of our discussions from here on out: Major K. is going to be exposed, destroyed and absolutely fucking put down wherever he wants to tout this filth. He might eventually muster up the courage to respond completely, thinking this is a surprise. The only surprise from here on out will be Major K.'s face when he realizes what a stupid fuck he's been exposed to be. Is this personal? Yes it is personal. It is personal insofar as it is on behalf of those wretched and miserable women of the Earth enslaved by the bonds of the sexuality of the bloodsuckers. Sick, disgusting and filthy bourgeois sexual morality as Lenin understood, which sanctifies venality, degradation and filth - whose sole virtue is slavery, domination, prostitution, humiliation and "submission". Every sadist is, however, a masochist as well. So take pleasure in this, Major K., for it is you, not your poor girlfriend, who will submit today. It is you, not your poor girlfriend or all the women bound by their chains, whose soul will be dominated, humiliated and destroyed here. Relish in the moment. Taste, on the level of consciousness and pure thought, the sweet justice of the damned which awaits you and your irk. My guess is that you will continually dodge me, you will avoid responding and constantly give us more "articles" followed by half-assed explanations. "Oh, just by skimming Rafiq" - well listen motherfucker, you can do that for all eternity, so long as you continue with this, I'm going to DIRECTLY FUCKING ATTACK YOU. You think you're unique? You think you're the first motherfucker on here who thought he could come and "enlighten" all the Marxists? You think you're the first motherfucker, the first philistine to respond by self-ironically and repetitively dodging me? RESPOND to me you fucking coward.

What I find most peculiar is this newfound confidence. Major K. went from being an "innocent, curious user" - for such reason, I was even criticized for attacking him so mercilessly - to so confidently and brazenly making these claims as if they are new - as though he has defeated Marxism all in one thrust. In the short period between my last response and such newfound revelations, Major K. most likely was quite joyful in being free from my grasp - every piece of shit evolutionary psychology article he ha come across, was in his mind a victory against Rafiq's claim. Every new argument for evolutionary psychology (which, child, I will demonstrate is new ONLY TO YOU - NONE OF THE FUCKING CLAIMS YOU WILL MAKE HERE WERE NOT ADDRESSED ALREADY IN THE PAST) is an argument that in his mind the power of Marxism is unable to answer. So long as Major K. takes it upon himself to spread this filth, this disgusting fucking poison on this website, he will be exposed. I'm ending your little fucking holiday, Major K., any confidence, joy or ideological relief you have built up between the period of my previous response, and the one that is forth coming, I am about to fucking destroy - mercilessly. Again, you would think that standards have somehow been lowered, because of our previous response. But the shit I am about to tear through here is absolutely - again - fucking shocking, even from the standard of a little boy's evolutionary psychology. I tell you, I warn all users who wish to invest any more time here - because the BLATANT mindless fucking stupidity, - the sheer PROPENSITY for someone to literally be so incapable of thinking critically - literally for a SECOND - will absolutely shock you. Do not mistaken the length of this response for something profound, for if you were a Marxist, everything I am about to say should be rather apparent. It is only that the volume of the bullshit invested in Major K.'s claims, and all of the ideas they are contingent upon, are so aggrandous that it requires an equally aggrandous response, for those of you who have been confused by it. Or did Major K. for a second think that I wasn't going to catch up to him? Listen to me, motherfucker, when I'm done with you here I would have already devoured every last fucking bit of "testosterone" you have left - at least for the short while that you are intellectually invested in this subject.


I was going to wait to just post the article, but since I've been pretty lazy about getting into the meat of my argument with you guys, I figured I'd give y'all a breakdown here instead:

Actually, before we completely begin, let's make something absolutely fucking clear: LINKING ARTICLES IS NOT ACTUALLY ENGAGING IN THE DISCUSSION. Do you somehow think Rafiq is unfamiliar with such articles? Are you, somehow, under hte impression that these articles are inaccessible to Revleft as a whole? I can pull 100 articles striahgt out of my fucking ass and it wouldn't make a diference. What isn't accessible is a thorough, detailed and critical extrapolation from those articles - the conclusions you have drawn from them are beyond fucking ridiculous, but what is more pathetic is that I addressed every single fucking claim that they imply in my previous post. Every single fucking one. For someone who has been inspired with so much argumentative nad intellectual confidence, it sure does become pathetic when you realize that your so-called new revelations are in themselves already demolished. But that's fine, because in case people can't extrapolate how I've already FUCKING dealt with this, I will deal with it again:


The key to unwrapping this puzzle is looking at hormones, in particular testosterone. I noticed Rafiq talking about men who behave as women in prison, etc. In these cases, you'd want to pay attention to the winner effect:

“In two experiments, male college students either won or lost $5 on a task controlled entirely by chance. In both studies, winners reported a more positive mood change than did losers and, in Experiment 2, winners reported a more positive mood change than a neutral group that did not win or lose money. After the task was completed, winners exhibited significantly higher testosterone levels than losers. Levels of cortisol, a hormone associated with stress and arousal, did not differ among the groups, suggesting that a hormone-behavior response pattern for winning and losing is specific to testosterone. These data suggest that winning can alter testosterone levels in men and that mood may mediate such changes."

What happens as an individual submits (male or female) is that testosterone levels drop. As testosterone drops, the individual becomes more empathetic and nurturing. It's a good adaptation for ensuring that weaker individuals don't get killed or eviscerated by stronger ones; when you're beaten and you know it, submit.

This also happens within committed monogamous relationships - men's testosterone falls by about half in this case, which is why you see so many men become "beta-ized" - the guy who was able to easily maintain firm control over his woman at the start of the relationship, when he was charged with dominance-inspiring testosterone, is no longer able to once he only has half as much T.

Meanwhile, women are also presumably subject to this, and as they pile up wins, they become more masculinized, less empathetic, and more dominant.

Hark! the herald angels of evolutionary psychology sing! Prostrate, ye men of the Earth, for the truth of this world has at last been revealed! The most stunning revelation has been bestowed as a gift to the men of the Earth: As it turns out, completely socially defined gender structures, archetypes, and social behaviors are in fact compatible and facilitated through physiological-chemical processes! Unbelievable! Here I was, Rafiq, here I was thinking that the behaviors exhibited by men and women, which are answerable only to the social domain themselves, do not need to be facilitated on a physical level. I thought humans had souls, I thought it was pure magic. But thanks to this stunning revelation, from Major K., I am now expected (Yes, ladies and gentlemen - of everything I have said - this argument is expected to compel us of its truth) to believe that my argument was incompatible with the fact of the existence of hormonal imbalances (which are themselves existing in a gray area) between men and women. Now, Major K., tell us, are you actually that fucking stupid? Do you actually believe that simply pointing out that for most people, their gender rituals are not incompatible with their biological sex and the hormonal implications that entails, somehow establishes a causal basis between the hormones and the behavior itself? THE ARTICLE YOU FUCKING LINKED, FOR FUCK'S SAKE, CLAIMED THAT THE TESTOSTERONE LEVELS WERE A BY-PRODUCT OF THE "GAME". if your argument had an IOTA of fucking worth in it, then guess what, the testosterone levels themselves would have determined the outcome of the game. As such, it is completely and wholly fucking irrelevant to fall back on this example as a rebuttal against he notion that sexuality is gendered and that furthermore, gender is irreducible to sexuality. Because saying that gender is irreducible to sexuality does NOT mean saying gender does not determine the expression of sexuality - the whole FUNDING POINT is that the expression of these innate, physiological processes (such as hormones, having a vagina, ETC.) and how society conceives them in its own reproduction ARE NOT DETERMINED BY ANY PRE-EXISTING PSYCHOLOGICAL STRUCTURES THAT EXIST FROM BIRTH. Furthermore, let's take a moment to actually fucking appreciate the simple fact that Major K. has inadvertently argued that gender, and therefore women's "submissiveness" is just as socially based as a fucking game to win 5 dollars. Let's take a moment to appreciate the fact that he has, to his own demise, already claimed that women also produce testosterone (and, in fact, as I will get to later, high testosterone levels and a high woman's sex drive are often linked) and experience, just like men, an increase in testosterone levels. First, however, let's fucking clarify something: Testosterone and estrogen, as any bumfuck idiot who is not 9 years old can understand, are incredibly complex hormones which have various different subdivisions which are responsible for infinitely many different things. The propensity for either sex to produce both amounts of hormones without any clear cut parameters also makes it even ridiculous to associate one sex with one hormone. A man, for example, can have high levels of the testosterone that accounts for his back hair, but have too low amounts of it where he will develop "man-boobs". A women, conversely, can build testosterone from exercise and working out (because of course, in Major K.'s mind, early humans, characterized by unpredictable mass migrations, were not mobile and women just stayed in the pre-historic cave kitchen while men ran around and did stuff) just like a man can. The key point I am encircling here, to nail it the fuck down however, is the comparison made between prison-rape, sexual slavery, and playing a fucking game where you affirmatively win 5 dollars. Are you actually fucking stupid? Even if we assume that being a rapist somehow constitutes being a "winner", WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR POINT EXACTLY? WHAT ACTUAL POINT ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE? HOW THE FUCK IS THIS RELEVANT IN ANY WAY? HOW IS BEING UNABLE TO WIN 5 DOLLARS's PHYSIOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS SOMEHOW IDENTICAL WITH BEING FUCKING RAPED AND GENDERED A FEMALE IN A MEN'S PRISON? HOW IS THAT RELEVANT? LIKE WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR POINT? You claim that: "What happens as an individual submits, is that testosterone levels drop. As testosterone drops, the individual becomes more empathetic and nurturing". First, let's take a moment to appreciate the fact that THE STUDY YOU LINKED DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THIS AT ALL. THERE IS NO EQUIVALENCY BETWEEN "SUBMITTING" (you DISGUSTING, slimy piece of fucking shit - god mark the day that will come when you're fucking castrated and forced to chew on your own fucking dick, come the revolution! "Submit" your irk shall... To death) AND BEING UNABLE TO WIN 5 DOLLARS IN A GAME. NONE. IN A GAME WHERE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO WIN 5 DOLLARS, THERE ARE NO RELATIONS OF POWER THAT MAKE THEMSELVES BARE, THERE IS NO "SUBMITTING" OR "DOMINATING", THERE IS WINNING OR LOSING - THERE IS A KEEN DIFFERENCE INSOFAR AS YOU SUBMIT NOTHING BY LOSING IN THE GAME SHOWN.

But let's ignore that. Let's play the devil's fucking advocate. Let us assume (and it is not unreasonable to assume) that those who are forced to "submit", those who receive the butting end of the violence of the sexual order, will end up with lower testosterone levels, more "empathy" and so on. Let's go out on a limb and assume that - and why not? Testosterone is, after all, linked to the expression of one's vitality (which is again IRREDUCIBLE to the testosterone - you fucking idiot). The argument falls the fuck apart when you take in consideration the fact that it is not simply an affirmative lack-of testosterone which accounts for "higher empathy", it is a condition of most oppressed, wrethced and enslaved themselves. Most slaves, most poor people, and most oppressed in general will on average have 'higher empathy'. This has nothing to do with some kind of evolutionary mechanism, but to the fact that their experiences, in being the butt-end of systemic oppression, allow them to relate to the suffering of others more easily. Otherwise, what really is "empathy"? For example, can poor people empathize with the rich as far as being rich goes? No, they can't. But if a rich person is shit on, or undergoes suffering, the poor are better able to understand this because it is a condition of their own existence. Great detail was put into what was called the master-slave complex by both Hegel and later Lacan, I mean - fucking whole books can be written about it, but in this disgusting philistine's mind, in this rodent's mind, all of this is reducible to "da testosterone". So if anything, this reality completely fucking backfires for you. Furthermore, you speak of lower testosterone and submission allowing women to be more "nurturing". As though the specific conditions of women's nurturing are timeless inevitable natural axioms. Saying this, you fucking idiot, is just as stupid as pointing out the fact that women "submitting" are more likely to cook, or perform other tasks consigned to their gender: all it demonstrates is that women do not "naturally" fit their gender roles, but have to conform - and submit to them. Now "nurturing" children would indeed be a timeless thing for humans, but the relationship between SUBMISSION and your propensity to nurture children, like the relationship between submission and your propensity to have sex, would be a link that is COMPLETELY FUCKING SEVERED. And why? Because women would be able to have sex, and raise children in a way that is affirmative, empowering and done on equal terms with men, they would not have to "submit" psychologically or otherwise, to perform such tasks, they would do so out of their own sexually independent initiative (In most real hunter-gatherer societies, men play a huge part in "nurturing" and raising children, too!). Furthermore this does not say anything about an "adaption" for weaker individuals to "not get killed", THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE GROUNDED IN A PRE-EXISTING NEUROLOGICAL FORMATION. Seeing how something is facilitated physically DOES NOT MAKE THAT THING REDUCIBLE TO THE PHYSICAL PROCESSES WHICH FACILITATE - and NOT determine it. The argument that you're making, indirectly or otherwise, essentially boils down to this: Testosterone inevitably leads to a lack of caring, "conquering", violence, rape, and so on, and a lack-of inevitably leads to nurturing, "empathy", and so on. That is just as feasible as saying that testosterone inevitably leads to playing games that win you 5 dollars, and a lack of inevitably leads - and was selected for - losing the game and therefore not winning 5 dollars. Cute story, but the reality is that NOTHING YOU HAVE ARGUED demonstrates this. Of course every historic epoch, every mode of production must regulate sexuality insofar as it regulates the reproduction of living human beings. Of the male gender is associated with domination, and the female gender submission (And for the record, the whole point we are driving is that THERE IS NO AFFIRMATIVE FEMALE GENDER. The "female gender" is PURELY defined as a LACK of sexual signification - it is the gender that has been conferred the role by society of having NO sexual identity, it is purely the negation of the phallus), then the physical sexual connotations of both sex's, as far as hormone imbalances, physical characteristics, ETC. are going to have an expression that CONFORMS to this. What gets lost in this harking on about "adaptations" is that AN ADAPTATION BY NATURE IS AN ECOLOGICAL CATEGORY. THERE ARE NO "Different" WAYS AN ADAPTATION CAN EXPRESS ITSELF. YOU EITHER ADAPT FOR A SPECIFIC KIND OF BEHAVIOR UNDER SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES, OR THERE IS NO ADAPTATION AT ALL. What that means is - if showing "submissiveness" in this fairy-tale world called "pre-history" that you have constructed in your imagination where the same disgusting filth that characterizes sexual relations today was present, meant putting your leg left up, puckering your lips, or whatever, there would be a SPECIFIC means by which this physical reflex would be stimulated. You see it, for example, in the mating rituals of Giraffes, where males must do very specific things (and NOT abstractions like "being nice" or "showing masculinity" (?)) with their bodies in order to mate with females. This is how ecology works - saying that women are "hardwired" to be submissive means that there is a specific means by which this submissiveness is expressed across history, BUT THIS IS NOT SO. Even in every historic epoch wherein women were sexually enslaved, the means by which this slavery was expressed, conferred and understood by society was different as far as its specialties go. There is no way to create an abstraction wherein you can link "common similarities" owing to some natural adaptation, BECAUSE NATURAL ADAPTATIONS CONCERN PHYSICAL REFLEXES, ECOLOGICAL BALANCE AND NOTHING MORE.

Let us evaluate the ontological and empirical obscurity of this fucking argument, however. Don't worry, kiddo, we'll get to its pathological dimension soon enough. I am going to be very thorough about fucking crushing you, about absolutely fucking destroying you and the disgusting filth you tout. The idea is just as ridiculous as claiming that on a psychological level, for humans, the vagina is associated with submissiveness - you can take any other physiological distinction between the sexes and make the same argument on an ontological level - this alone for example explains the utter travesty that is cognitive psychology (NOT cognitive science as such, but cognitive psychology). The idea amounts to the notion that because something exists (rather than not exist), it is just as ontologically inevitable in the expression of its existence as the existence of the universe itself. So let's go ahead and evaluate the question that you indirectly want to encircle around: why does testosterone, rather than another hormone, go up when someone wins something? The question first strikes one as unbelievably fucking naive in that it emanates such a stunning lack of appreciation for the fact that - that something exists in our society sais nothing about it being some kind of inevitability of human existence. It similarly is just as ridiculous as to how racists point that "blacks have higher crime rates and, on average, a lower iq". They say this, and without even thinking about it assume it is a "natural" result of processes that are physically inevitable. But as it happens, there is absolutely nothing inevitable about this, for these processes exist and are answerable to the social domain exclusively. If it were any other way, then there would be balance between man and nature, but there is none. So, why testosterone? This is tantamount to asking why the moon exists rather than a lion. Testosterone, which is naturally produced in both sexes, assumes different roles - some of them purely physical, and some of them can have effects on people's behavior (but not DETERMINE the actual behavior itself - which is social and exclusively social). What is a fact, however, is that there is no innate, implicit or inevitable "thing" that is written on hormones that are secreted which accounts for the complexity of gender relations in modern society. One might get confused here in evaluating precisely which natural bases are truly bases throughout history, and which ones are not, but again, the question is a tautological one. Why? because the consciousness which asks such questions is a human consciousness, you do not assume a "god's eye view" of the world. Therefore, such questions are posited as abstractions by nature. The only way to answer the question "Why are women submissive and men dominant" is not to look at and isolate the physical processes which facilitate this (this is tantamount to isolating regions in the brain that activate when watching TV - THE BRAIN ACTIVITY DOES NOT PRODUCE THE TV, IT IS MERELY FACILITATED BY THE EXTERNAL EXPERIENCE OF WATCHING ONE), but to look at the functional role this has on the level of a society. Are you somehow insinuating, for example, that we Marxists propose that human physiology is incompatible with the social dimension? No, on the contrary, our only point has ever been that the social dimension assumes the role of reproducing the biological, just as the biological reproduces the chemical. How it does this will vary on the level of a society. If this was some kind of inevitability, YOU FUCKING IDIOT, then women would ALREADY by NATURE be submissive. They wouldn't have to "lose" like male prison rape victims, they wouldn't have to encounter situations wherein their "innate submissiveness magical thing" is triggered - it would be born already. But as it happens, any FUCKING IDIOT can see that in the course of psycho-sexual development, women conform to a gender. Does this gender assume and determine the expression of biological processes? Yes, and not the other way around. Otherwise, why would gender even exist? Gender exists as a way to reproduce sexuality in such a way that reproduces society. Women's "submission" is absolutely and wholly tied to this insofar as women must submit to commodification, to the spiritual prostitution of capitalist society. So to ask why testosterone facilitates such behavior is tantamount to asking why any chemical process occurs in the human body, which facilitates objectively social behavior: it is a false question because recognizing its existence practically, on a scientific level, does not lead one to the conclusion - if they are being scientifically consistent- that it is this hormonal imbalance which is a detriment of women's "submission". But again, it boggles the fuck mind that you can tell us that men who are raped in prison - or boys who are raised as sexual slaves having less testosterone strengthens your argument. You are speaking as an evolutionary psychologist. That means that you're talking about innate psychological structures (NONE OF WHICH have been empirically verified) in the human brain which exist based on whether one has a cock, or one has a vagina. If your argument amounts to the idea that "Well, it's not men and women per se, it's just about how much testosterone you have", proposing some kind of linear magnitude that rewards those with the most testosterone also fails to take into account just how complex testosterone is as a chemical. There are men who can be "wussies" who are huge, physically. Testosterone plays a huge part in the building of their muscles, but does nothing for them on a psychological level. And there are men where the opposite is true. You can claim these are just "exceptions" all you want, but the fact that they EXIST demonstrate that the "testosterone magnitude of not being enslaved" you have proposed is absolutely fucking garbage - testosterone is responsible for a number of things, and different levels of it exist in different ways for different things. What it is NOT is a determinant of humans on a psychological level. Even from an evolutionary standpoint, the idea is fucking stupid - humans were so mobile and elastic in their mass-migrations, in their sexual conditions (men dying, women dying, disparities between sexes, etc.), that there could have never been a pre-determined sexual relation ordained by physical processes, else humans would have not existed. That is why every hunter-gatherer society at least has some variance in its rituals. Of course, as pointed out, you can't explain on an evolutionary level why I am typing all of this, and why we are even engaging in this very discussion. You presuppose you're a god, a divine being, looking down at all da stupid humans, but I'm here to drag you back the fuck down. I went over this peculiarity of our rotten society in detail before, however.

So back to the specific matter at hand, my previous argument amounted nothing more to the argument that if women's so-called submissiveness was an innate, inevitable consequence of their physiology (INCLUDING their hormone levels), and not systemic sexual violence, then why is this "submissiveness" observed among men when they are gendered as females, or when they are castrated? In fact, fi we are speaking about innate psychological processes, if a man is - say- castrated, or has his dick chopped off, will he exhibit the same sexual behaviors? No, he'll get used to this and - even though he's producing the same testosterone, the levels would probably fall as he'd "give up" trying to have sex. Why is that, if we are speaking about innate processes? Was this behavior selected for, and why? You see, a bull, for example, if it has its dick chopped off, it will still look for cows in heat and try to fuck them, to no avail. That is because its behavior is ordained on a physiological - not psychological/social level. So if you chopped off my dick, would I try to fuck women without a dick? Would I bring a women to by bedroom, undergo all the "natural" submission rituals (lol), and as soon as the time's right, whip out my non-existent cock? IF THESE ARE INNATE PROCESSES, THEN I SHOULD BE DOING THAT. Saying otherwise is a pretense to SUPERSTITION, plain and simple! You are consigning forces this or that role in an unproven manner, without ANY empirical evidence to suggest so - THAT IS PURELY SUPERSTITION. This is why evolutionary psychology has no practical use beyond apologizing for the existing order - NONE! There is no practical application for it as far as medicine, etc. goes. This is why people call it unfalsifiable - evolutionary psychology fails even positivist standards of science. Physiology, biology, KIDDO, has no regard for "meaning" or "intent". If it did, then dogs wouldn't fuck stuffed animals. Biology concerns physical reflexes that are out of pure proximity - depending on how social the animal is. So how do you account for gendered men? In fact, my argument, my initial argument ALREADY ACCOUNTED for the proposition that "Only the wussy girl-men who don't have da testosterone become gendered as females":

Think about this "submissiveness", you fool. Men who are gendered as females in prison, or boys in ancient societies - or even present-day Afghanistan, learn to be just as "submissive" as a female. How is this? Were they born with that destiny? If so, how does that explain the various slave-boys from birth in ancient societies who were sold as sexual slaves, regardless of any real evaluation of their hormonal balance? This of course ignores homosexuality, and transgender individuals - but we can assume Major K. believes they were "born" not wanting to reproduce.

Men conform to their gender. Do some men, by merit of physiological realities, such as being born with a stronger chest, or more "testosterone", find it easier to conform to their gender? They do, but their gender is irreducible to such characteristics - the gender exists as a social externality which they must conform to, actively, consciously and subconsciously throughout their psycho-sexual development. In different societies, there are different connotations of masculinity. Having an outrageous amount of testosterone can mean being a field-working serf or slave just as much as being effeminate can be associated with masculinity - as was the case in most of Europe before the industrial revolution, and as was the case in most ancient societies (Save for Sparta, which ironically was distinguished for the dominance of women in domestic matters). What we consider "masculine" could have been considered something else in previous societies, and vice versa. For a long time, for example, the color pink was a boy's color, it was a masculine color. It is within every humans' capacity to not be in the "submissive" position in sex, but to also enjoy it too. What this means is that the submissiveness of women has absolutely nothing to fucking do with some kind of innate magical pre-existing psychological structure, but the reality that what it means to be a women in capitalist society, is to submit to men. Women are incapable of desire in capitalist society - they are only capable of desiring to be desired. How do we know this is not an inevitability? Precisely because the complexity of female fantasy in approximating itself to this reality. As far as bare physical energy goes, for example, women are just as "driven" to have sex as men are. The minute women want to affirmatively desire for the sake of desiring is the minute they are no longer conforming to their gender. This doesn't just mean talking about men in a sexual way, but desiring men for sexual fulfillment that is not contingent upon how they, in their imagination, conceive the magnitude of their own desirability. Sexual difference is not signified by the juxtaposition of the vagina and the phallus, for the vagina is not its own independent sexual signifier. Instead, the vagina - in capitalist society - amounts to a lack-of, the lack-of phallus or sexual signification. We don't need to look at women on any level, however, to see how this works - we can simply look at the anxiety that befalls men in their inability to "control their women", or maintain their ability to signify sexual difference. Men are incredibly insecure about being unable to fulfill this role. If there was something "natural" about it, if it was anything but RITUALISTIC, ritualistic in the same manner that you have learned to type on a fucking keyboard and dance, this anxiety would not befall men- men and women would not have to actively conform to their DESIGNATED gender roles in order to even want or enjoy sexuality. Man is the totality of his social relations. End of story. So as far as your ability to "unwrap this puzzle", using the language of every obnoxious, piece of shit pop-science writer, you have absolutely and utterly fucking failed. The "key" to the puzzle, you claim? How's this, you stupid motherfucker, your key has not only failed to open the door, it has failed to be a key at all - instead, you've used a thread of dingle-berries you pulled from your ass. You haven't even come close to finding the "key" to understanding such matters, because you don't understand such matters at all, in fact. You play hopscotch with a juvenile metaphysics and feel like you're able to get away with it too because our degenerate society tolerates some of these hacks in the universities. Listen - society's existential crisis and its propensity to construct fairy-tales to account for the void where their god used to be has absolutely nothing to do with fucking science, it has everything to do with trying to legitimize some force of guarantee instead of a god. That's why every stupid motherfucker evolutionary psychologist will say "Well, we don't have souls, we derived from evolutionary processes!" - theologians, Christians are at least better in that they make the distinction between spirit and physiology. These motherfuckers are literally trying to erase the social dimension all together, to make it unquestionable all together.

Now we shall explore the pathological dimension, at last:


Alternately, if you're the dominant guy, in the context of relationships, I can tell you every time I have a fight with a girlfriend, after I win (and I always do), the girl immediately becomes more submissive, and this is sexually arousing for both of us. It's why makeup sex is so hot - the girl submits to the man, and the man recognizes her submission and takes her. I have to make conscious efforts to not beat women down too far in fights and general relationship maintenance to avoid getting a kind of "reverse betaization" going on where the woman submits too completely and becomes boring to me.

And ladies and gentlemen, let's take time to appreciate what a sick, slimy motherfucker this Major K. is. What a disgusting piece of fucking shit - there is absolutely no difference between this, on a pathological level, and stating that you "beat your wife, but not too hard". This is the sick thresher that is capitalist sexual relations, in fact the description provided above, by the standards even of a modern society, are alone sufficient enough to induce vomit. You "control" your women? See, this intellectual fucking dwarf, this fucking idiot probably derives some satisfaction from psychologically abusing his girlfriend into "submission" by winning arguments. But look, Major K., look at the role you have designated for yourself in THIS argument. How the fuck does it feel to be torn to fucking pieces, to have your soul absolutely fucking dominated where it has shown itself? I want to pause for a moment and comment on a phenomena which pervades most of these evolutionary psychologist scum. That tiny moment where they relate their own sexual experiences to their disgusting fucking theories is absolutely fucking sickening insofar as it reveals precisely the ritualistic, NON INEVITABLE or "NATURAL" nature of the sexuality they so ardently defend as "brah, it's just natural". For that one moment, as free agents, as people who think they are free, rational agents capable of higher thought - thought that encompasses what it means to be human in the first place - they plainly, soberly and seemingly apathetically describe with ease their own relation to sexual violence. "For my wife, every time she's submissive it makes us both happy and it brings joy to us". "When my girlfriend becomes submissive, it is sexually arousing for both of us". Look how loaded these phrases are, these descriptions are. What depravity, what darkness, what seemingly rabid filth lurks behind this calmed, reason description? Not only is it fucking creepy, it is fucking disgusting. Similarly to he who describes his sadistic experiences dispassionately and calmly, this is a by-product of what we might call, or what Zizek calls western buddhism. Precisely removing yourself form the impassioned proximity of every-day life, keeping a distance from "wordly" considerations, this is how the rituals of capitalist society are facilitated today. Monsters upon monsters, demons, darkness and filth possesses these men - nay, it defines them. With their sick, predatory rituals, they justify themselves calmly and detatched. This, ladies and gentlemen is barbarism - NOT impassioned fanaticism or fundamentalism, but precisely absolving yourself from investing your personal identity, language, in the real and brutal violence which underlies it. It doesn't matter that physical violence might not be involved - because violence here, as it is always - concerns matters of spirit, which is why so easily and abruptly the "physical" violence rears its ugly head in our society. These fucking crocodiles, smiling calmly as they describe to us behaviors which they confer as natural - THIS IS TRUE FAITH IN THE EXISTING ORDER, THIS IS IDEOLOGY, THIS IS BELIEF. The "reasoned" reactionary, as I described before.

You "always win". Even in modern postmodern society, most relationship fights are expected to be resolved with compromise, with at least on a formal level both participants retaining a sense of dignity at the level of appearance. And of ocurse this sick, disgusting motherfucker will get "bored" of a girl if she's too submissive - probably because being "too submisisve" Listen you sick motherfucker, we don't care about how you act with your girlfriend - we don't give a fuck, it doesn't bolster any of hte arguments at hand. That you are an especially sick motherfucker who gets sexually aroused from psychologically abusing his partner, and that your victim gets sexually aroused in conforming to her role (AGAIN, sexual drives are not "at conflict" with gender - in fact, gender determines their expression). Tell me major, what do you seek to prove here? Are you somehow outside the totality of sexual relations? Like, WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR POINT that you find conforming to your gender role sexually arousing (when gender itself defines sexual desire?)? Is there a point I am missing? Oh, and of course, the idea that makeup sex exclusively refers to women "losing" the argument, which by merit of conventional wisdom alone (the same kind you derive your hypotheses vis a vis evolutionary psychology) is not even common at all, is plainly and wholly FUCKING WRONG. Let's just look at the description provided by this sick, slimy motherfucker:

the girl submits to the man, and the man recognizes her submission and takes her

Look at how casually he describes this, as though he's narrating a fucking national geographic special on kangaroos, as though he's a fucking zoologist, as though the impassioned complexities of the bedroom are now zoological categories. Look at how he describes this behavior so detached from it. What he describes is PRECISELY the pathology of the totality of sexual relations in our society - what is seemingly an innocent "ecological" observation is completely, and wholly the word of someone ideologically engaged and invested in the ruling sexual order. "The man recognizes her submission and takes her". My god, you know what's so fucking disgusting? Reading this description makes me never want to have sex again. Nothing is more sobering, nothing is more merciless toward someone's sex drive (at least if they are a Communist) than this kind of disgusting shit - just like watching the filming of an industrial pornography from a third person perspective (i.e. not as the camera man, but as a third cameraman watching the whole thing being shot). "The man recognizes her submission and takes her" - what is of particular interest here is NOT to say that women allow dicks in their vagina. This is exactly what these motherfuckers want, they want there to eb an inevitable bridge between one or the other. Instead, we must DETACH the conference of power demonstrated here with its raw implications. In any society, will women "allow" men to fuck them? Yes, but this is far from the point - the point is how this is articulated as far as the psycho-sexual totality of society is concerned, and WORDS ARE OF KEY IMPORTANCE HERE. As I stated before, this is how ideology works - something is designated, but never made knowable. Likewise, women allowing men to fuck them is demonstrated, but by merit of the structure of the sentence itself, and how it is phrased, what is designated ideologically is the raw reality of women's spiritual enslavement and revocation of sexual identity on an affirmative level. For example, as stated before, the OPPOSITE can be true - the "active' role can be a submissive one and the "submissive" one can be an active one. Let us ignore the fact that women can be "on top", i.e. the ones actively fucking. Even if women were all hard-wired to fuck like plastic dolls (that is, stationary and doing nothing at all), the power relations conferred to this act are not justified. One can easily imagine an alternate reality wherein the penetrative role is submissive insofar as it confers submissive labor, while the "receiving" role is the dominant one, justified by merit of being able to sit back, relax, whatever, like a Caesar being fed grapes. This treads on the ridiculous in most's minds, but it just goes to show how all-encompassing dominant sexual relations and the power they confer are. And language here, ordinary language, is the key to understand this ideological. dimension. For example, "the man takes her". Why does he "take her"? For example, the man "fucks her". Why isn't she fucking him, too? The very word "fucking" is automatically consigned the imaginative description of a phallus, of penetrative acts. Major K. is seriously trying to make the argument that - wait for it - this is because of "nature", that there is some magical device in our heads which makes thinking this an inevitability across historical epochs, i.e. even in Communism where the relationship between property and sexuality is DESTROYED insofar as property is destroyed. This is the beautiful thing about Marxism - we will always be able to criticize them ideologically on this level. Major K. will never fully wrap his head around this phenomena, he will NEVER be able to question - let alone answer to this. For him, "fucking" something, "taking" a girl, these are just as ontologically axiomatic as anything. But the fact that we can question, IN OUR FUCKING HEADS this proves that it is not only within the capacity for humans to create such a reality, but that its absence is precisely insightful as far as understanding the "natural" sexual relations as they exist today. And you can see how sick our fucking society is as far as this is concerned: Even when women take the active role in sex, they are "riding his dick", when performing oral sex, this confers in popular imagination and in consciousness submission. When a man performs oral sex on a girl, he's "eating her out", i.e. doing something active, signifying devouring, and so on.

There is nothing fundamentally, inherently implicit in these acts which justifies how they are conceived as far as consciousness goes. These roles, these connotations, are conferred SOLELY ON A SOCIAL LEVEL, NOT A "BIOLOGICAL" ONE. And why know this because ON the level of consciousness, ritual, ETC. - they must be CONTINUALLY and ACTIVELY perpetuated. Something that takes actual fucking conscious will to regularly perpetuate and conform to cannot be biologically determined. End of fucking story. If you say it is, you also need to justify the consciousnesses which types on Revleft.com and sais this or that about "biology" - was Major K. selected uniquely with the ability to bring the humans the troof of evolutionary psychology, because this allows for humans to survive so they don't do revolution and kill themselves? See, anyone can make up fucking stories like that. "Oh, computers was adapted for so humans could survive, it was just adapted for with a 180,000 year trajectory path and it only became unlocked recently. Lul biology".


That said, it does seem to be possible for men and women to get off sexually with the roles reversed - e.g., dominatrices, men who enjoy pegging, etc. It's a mindset shift, where the woman finds pleasure in dominating, and the man pleasure in submitting. Thing is, I don't think these people reproduce a whole lot - I have a hard time imagining a dominatrix really wanting her b*tch boy to rail the living shit out of her. Instead, she'll want to put her strap-on on and ream his anus, and let another man who makes her submit be the one who inseminates her, while b*tch boy watches and wanks.

I actually need to take a ten minute break. I cannot believe what I am fucking reading. I cannot believe what I am fucking reading. I LITERALLY CANNOT FUCKING BELIEVE WHAT I AM READING. Please tell me you're a fucking troll. No, go ahead, tel me you're a troll and I will forgive you. ARE YOU ACTUALLY PROPOSING THAT WHAT EXPLAINS THE PHENOMENA OF DOMINATRIX's IS THE FACT THAT THEY DO NOT REPRODUCE? DO YOU EVEN KNOW HOW BIOLOGY WORKS? DO YOU EVEN KNOW HOW FUCKING EVOLUTIONARY SELECTION WORKS? YOU CANNOT ARBITRARILY FUCKING PICK AND CHOOSE WHEN AND HOW PEOPLE "REPRODUCE" - LIKE ARE YOU FUCKING STUPID? ARE YOU LITERALLY FUCKING STUPID? No, this has to be a troll we're dealing with. I cannot possibly fathom how someone can literally go about their day and think this. I cannot imagine how someone wakes up in the morning, engages in social life, goes about their day, and literally thinks this to themselves. How far up your ass does your head have to be to come up with this shit? Literally, this is at the level of shocking - I literally only believed trolls were capable of this, but at the present moment you have succeeded in increasing the threshold to which I am capable of taking PURE FUCKING STUPIDITY seriously. PURE fucking stupidity.

Let's make ONE FUCKING THING CLEAR. In the western world, where such sexual fetishes such as BDSM and being a "Dominatrix" is exclusively present, PEOPLE ON AVERAGE REPRODUCE FAR LESS THAN THOSE IN LESS ADVANCED STATES. But from an "evolutionary" perspective, this makes little sense - as it happens, the west, which is the most hedonistic, most hypersexual and most promiscuous, is also the least sexually reproductive region of the fucking world. That people who are dominatrix's don't want to reproduce (which is empirically uncorroborated, it stems PURELY from Major K.'s baseless inferences) has absolutely NOTHING To fucking do with any kind of - what exactly are you proposing, by the way? That domaintrix's literally are hardwired to not be able to reproduce? Like what are you actually suggesting? Moreover, what you fail to understand about this example of BDSM is NOT simply that the women is "dominant", but the fact that PRECISELY THE PLEASURABLE DIMENSION TO IT RELEGATES BACK TO THE WIDER SEXUAL TOTALITY. The "b*tch" boy (by the way, of ten times these kinds of "boys" who like to watch their girl get fucked are the most chauvinistic, masculine types - every sadist is a masochist) only gets off to this in the first place because it is a steaming exaltation of the "normal" sexual relations - in other words, women being a dominatrix DOESN'T EVEN assign her the role of being sexually dominant, because it precisely the "perverse" nature of this which makes it so arousing to those involved - if a man had no pathological problem with watching "his girl" get fucked by "another man who can make her submit", HE WOULD NOT FIND IT SEXUALLY AROUSING IN THE FIRST PLACE. The same goes, for example, of the pedophile catholic priest. It is precisely the pathological prohibition, the existence of a proposed temptation itself which makes it so enticing - fucking a young boy. So if anything, all this does is PROVE that such matters of "submission" exist as matters of male gaze - they exist NOT as an extension of a "natural" female sexual identity, but as an extension of male sexual desire. The extent to which females experience desire here, again, depends on their desirability. This is the fucking POINT of objectification and the commodification of women's sexuality you fucking idiot. With the case of a female dominatrix "fucking her b*tch boy in the anus with a strap on*, it is precisely the contingency this act has on what is conceived as "normal" sexual relations which exemplifies its pleasurability. If this was not the case, then women would not find pleasure fucking a guy with a strap on - because as it happens, she doesn't actually feel anything by doing this. It is purely a psychological phenomena, BDSM is nothing more than the creative approximation of ruling sexuality in such a way that one can choose its expression, one can push the right psychological buttons and "entangle" their desires to make them more pleasurable(still bound by ruling sexuality). It is precisely this mastery of ruling sexuality which makes some aspects of BDSM subversive to the ruling sexual order (which sais nothing about twisted abominations like Fifty shades of Grey, which has little to do with the BDSM in question). But as it happens, the whole argument falls to fucking pieces the minute you approach the fact that it is beyond fucking stupid to think that people who engage in "abnormal" sexuality only exist because they cannot reproduce (and hence pass on such "traits" - which are presumed to be innate genetic mutations - and so far, THIS MUCH HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN). This idea is the highest kind of fucking superstition, because as it happens, most people who engage in "abnormal" sexuality don't reproduce for a number of reasons. The first reason is that abnormal sexual practices often conflict with raising a "normal" family in our society, they do not conform to the demands of the family unit. The second reason is that these practices are often done by segments of society who increasingly have no inclination or intuition to have kids because they do not need to have them for survival - you don't see poor Bangladeshi, Chinese or Pakastani people who practice BDSM, this is largely something done by people who are already in a position where they don't need to have kids.

But there is no physiological or "evolutionary" reason for it. Such abnormalities, for example, would have to be located on the level of a genetic mutation in your mind. So tell me what this genetic mutation which violates "human adaptation" amounts to? If, for example, a horse engages in abnormal sexuality, that is because the horse is hard-wired in such a way that disallows it to reproduce normally. That's how evolutionary adaptations work. But for human sexual abnormalities, THIS HAS NOTHIGN TO DO with some kind of physiological abnormality, but a psychological one, relating to their devleopment. One cannot speak of a "natural" trajecotry path of devleopment either, becuase evolution is not about meaning or intent. Evolutionary processes SIMPLY REFER TO THE TESTAMENT TO THAT WHICH IS ABLE TO CONTINUALLY EXIST AND REPRODUCE ITS EXISTENCE. So it is just as ridiculous as talking about animals doing things for "genetic fitness" as it is to talk about a rock existing to "be a rock". the dimension of intent, meaning and will IS NOT PRESENT HERE - ANIMALS DO NOT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT GENETIC FITNESS OR REPRODUCING, THEY DO THESE THINGS BY MERIT OF A COMPLEX WEB OF PHYSICAL REFLEXES THAT ARE ACTIVATED BY ENVIRONMENTAL STIMULI. They do these things as TESTAMENT to their existence, and their continued existence - which is ecologically bound. Humans have no ecology, and humans have no habitat. None at all. So to say humans do things for "evolutionary reasons" and then explain away the exceptions by saying "they won't reproduce" is beyond fucking stupid, but let's ignore that - I ALREADY FUCKING ADDRESSED THIS:

Lesbians don't reproduce sexually, lul, so dey don't count as women. Nevermind the lesbian couples who adopt who couldn't give less of a fuck about "passing on their genes". And bisexual women? But nevermind this. Are lesbians all infertile? That they are not reproducing sexually sais nothing about their capacity to reproduce. That is the point you're fucking dodging. You say that merely by merit of "reproducing" or being able to women are submissive. But is this a matter of will? If women have to actively be submissive, then how the fuck is this some kind of innate property?

Or is it just innate that men prefer submissive women? But Luis clearly doesn't. The fuck is wrong with him? Some kind of genetic anomaly, or what?

So let's review: There is no reason to think that women have to be "submissive" to engage in sexual behavior as far as physiology goes, or for the penetrative role to be conferred the status of power and dominance. These are all connotations conferred by our social order, not by any kind of innate physiological inevitabilities.[/I]


The reason for the arguments we’re having in this thread is that some folks are coming in and saying, "It's nature" while others are saying, "No, fool, it's nurture", when the truth is it's a mix of both.

That's so cute, where did you read that, a pop-science article, or Yahoo! answers? Do you think we are unfamiliar with this argument? Do you think this notion of "its a mix of both" has not befallen us, that we are too engaged in our dogmatic partisanship to see the glorious, golden "middle path" to take? On the contrary, we Marxists say IT IS NEITHER. Why? Because both "nature" and "nurture" are ecological categories. Humans are not ecological animals - they actively transform nature and in the process transform themselves. The argument is fucking stuipd because you can easily just say "well, how people nurture is naturally defined" - you can arbitrarily pick and choose however the fuck you want this to work.

But Marxists know better. As I already demonstrated before:

Human cosnciosuness, therefore, stems from a new dimension all-together: The social dimension of life. This is why those who speak of a "natural state" are the greatest fools, whether leftists or rightsists - there is no "natural state", for every single human society had complex rituals, dances, narratives, mythologies, etc. to sustain its conditions of existence. Take this dimension away, and what is left is the helplessness of the wailing infant. Hegel took this even further when he spoke of "Africans" (which was rather progressive for it's time, because it rejected any racialist-essentialist readings of Africans), which we can substitute for hunter-gatherers. For Hegel, this wasn't some kind of "pure state", it was a state of rupture wherein humans were coping with the traumatic effects of being expelled from the animal kingdom, possessed by a death drive . To quote Zizek:

In his anthropological writings, Kant emphasized that the human animal needs disciplinary pressure in order to tame an uncanny "unruliness" which seems to be inherent to human nature - a wild, unconstrained propensity to insist stubbornly on one's own will, cost what it may. It is on account of this "unruliness" that the human animal needs a Master to discipline him: discipline targets this "unruliness," not the animal nature in man.

In Hegel's Lectures on Philosophy of History, a similar role is played by the reference to "negroes": significantly, Hegel deals with "negroes" before history proper (which starts with ancient China), in the section entitled "The Natural Context or the Geographical Basis of World History": "negroes" stand there for the human spirit in its "state of nature," they are described as a kind of perverted, monstrous child, simultaneously naive and extremely corrupted, i.e. living in the pre-lapsarian state of innocence, and, precisely as such, the most cruel barbarians; part of nature and yet thoroughly denaturalized; ruthlessly manipulating nature through primitive sorcery, yet simultaneously terrified by the raging natural forces; mindlessly brave cowards...

During the pinnacle of bourgeois philosophy, German idealism, precisely those crazy aspects of man were what they used to DISTINGUISH from animals, which had a balanced relationship to nature, were predictable, knew their role, ETC. Wheter this description from Hegel was true for Africans or not does not change the fact that it encapsulates a very basic feature of humans - actively responding to nature, being thrown into the thresher of the world with no "innate" properties to help them cope with it - a thoroughly helpless, wholly dependent (on the "master" or the social dimension) creature, like an infant.

There is a dimension between "nature" and "culture" for humans which is missing - which precisely makes it so there is no such thing as a natural human state, or a state of affairs where humans are dictated by natural process. The minute homo sapiens sapiens became homo sapiens sapiens si when they departed from the animal kingdom. The space between "nature" and "culture" is precisely what Freud called "Death drive", which was described by Hegel too - it is the dimension of humanity that ruptures any balance with the natural world, it is most definitely encapsulated by the irrational and helpless wailing of an infant as it enters the world. No other animal is born like this.


Women are more naturally nurturing and submissive while men are more naturally expansionary and conquering, and each sex is better at these roles than the other sex - the chance of ever getting a female Alexander the Great is probably infinitesimally low even if you turned all of Planet Earth into the Mosou. When women are in charge, they just don't want to conquer - they want equality and caretaking.

As I will demonstrate in my next post regarding your little friend talking about Ghenghis Khan, this is an absolutely stupid fucking point. That there couldn't have been a female Alexander the great has nothing to do with any kind of inevitable physiological reality but the reality that for as long as civilization has existed, a tiny fraction of the existence of homo sapiens sapiens, i.e. since the Neolithic revolution, women were sexually enslaved in coincidence with the emergence of private property. The inability for women to have enslaved men is for a clear and simple reason - it's not even that they are on average physically weaker (a factor), it is that women were handicapped by pregnancy, and therefore incapable of resisting being enslaved (the first roles enslaved women assumed were not only of a sexual nature, but also tiling the fields, etc.) due to the fact that no humans could have been born if women were constantly embarking on "conquest-driven" adventures. For this reason, men composed the militarizes of the first civilizations, which were led by men in the first place for the reasons described - and therefore "conquered" others.

But "conquest" is here used as a stupid and worthless fucking abstraction. There is no "conquering" eternal force, conquest refers to specific actions for specific reasons. The conquest of the western territories from the native Americans in the United States is absolutely incomparable to the conquest of the Southern Iberian peninsula by the Arabs. That is to say, conquest doesn't actually mean anything on an essential level, it just vaguely refers to those instances of subsuming territory or forcing other nations/peoples into submission by the sword. This happens for reasons, again, EXPLICABLE ONLY BY MERIT OF THE HISTORICAL TOTALITY THAT WHICH IT OCCURS IN. You can abstract "conquest" as a historical phenomena and say it has happened since civilization first existed, but you are not scientifically describing any essential phenomena - doing this would require a historicist analysis of how this "conquest" was carried out, why, and in what specific social context. Say it is true that there cannot be a war-mongering matriarchal society - the metaphysical implications you draw from this, or the 'evolutionary psychological' conclusions drawn are wholly non justified. That there has not been a war-mongering matriarchal society - or that there hasn't existed one in history, has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT BEING INEVITABLE OR THERE BEING MEANING BEHIND THIS. IT relegates - again - to the fact that pregnant women make horrible soldiers. You do see, however, in history, various instances of female-fighters, amazons, and so on who consciously abdicated from becoming pregnant. Within the context of the 21st century, where war is increasingly becoming capable of being waged with the push of a fucking button (with drones, and what have you) it is entirely possible for a matriarchal society to be war-mongering. Even by the time of mechanized warfare it was possible - the reason some women made poor warriors was often due to the sheer physical proximity of war with swords and what have you. Women, however, have just as much - if trained - a propensity to kill as men do, and with the advent of - you know - firearm based infantry warfare there is no reason to assume women couldn't have been conquerors for any physiological reasons. Just ask the famous Soviet female warriors who sometimes bested their male counterparts, the famous female partisans, and guerrillas of the 20th century. Hell, go to fucking Rojava you stupid motherfucker - talk to me about women who can't kill because they are "nurturing" (lol). Most "conquerors" weren't even capable of fighting on the battlefield, anyway - the reason why you couldn't have a female Alexander the Great or a female Ghenghis Khan is solely relegated to the fact that in those societies the female gender was not conferred the ability to arise to positions of power. Alexander the Great didn't make a fucking difference as far as his physiology was concerned - he was an icon, and a symbol. Society would not tolerate a female Alexander the great because its ideological and psycho-sexual implications are entirely different, again, those are factors that are explicable by the historic totalities of those societies, that we have in common with them the sexual slavery of women suggests nothing other than the fact that the sexual slavery of women is necessary to reproduce the existing order. IT is not a "vestige", it is not owed to some kind of specter that "manifests" itself in human history. Even the expression of the sexual slavery of women is so distinct in our societies that comparing patriarchy today and patriarchy in the Hellenistic era would be playing with abstractions. Women's "submission" is today expressed in an entirely different manner, likewise, across historic epochs the ways in which women were "submissive" WERE FUCKING DIFFERENT. In Viking societies, mathematics was women's work. This was not true for Arab societies. Is that because nords and Arabs are physiologically different? Please open that can of worms, I dare you. So "submission" here is a pure abstraction once we add a historical dimension to it, it refers to NOTHING MORE than the slavery of women by man - as structured genders - saying that it has an ESSENTIAL basis, a biological or inevitable basis would mean that its expression would not vary. But its expression not only varies, it is entirely different across historic epochs and totalities.


Anyway, by reading through Rafiq's post, you can see how much of a limb he's going out on to try to prove the unprovable,

Okay, show me how any of hte claims you are making are provable. Show me. Show me how ANY SINGLE ONE OF THE FUCKING CLAIMS YOU HAVE MADE ARE "FALSIFIABLE" IN ANY WAY. You claim that what I am saying is "unproveable". But you're a stupid fuck because all I have done is assume a CRITICAL role as far as reciving your claims go - the burden of proof lies upon YOU who make empirical claims about "human nature" without even proving them. Let's look at the proof, shall we? Let's take a quiz:

1. At the level of human physiology, has anything been proven or found in the past 5 decades which accounts for the surge in evolutionary psychology and sociobiology? Anything at all? No, none have. In fact, evidence to the contrary has been found often times on this level.

2. Are the claims made by evolutionary psychologists or sociobiologists FALSIFIABLE at all? They are not, in fact, they are contingent upon the claim that these are merely logical conclusions of accepting hte premise that evolutioary biology is legitimate and that humans do not have souls. But this is a perversion - it ignores that social dimension that allows them to talk such cack in the first place, which gives their "ideas" context in the first place. It goes back to the rise of ecology fetishism, which I thoroughly and explicitly went into detail in my previous post.

3. Finally, even without empirical evidence, has any evolutionary psychology claim, even by its positivist qualifications, been proven? There has not. In fact, apologists will simply say "Well, they are valid hypotheses, so we shouldn't dismiss them".

That my post is giant, and will continue to be giant reflects the sheer proportions of the twisted fucking stupidity you've given us. I have taken it upon myself to destroy you in a totalizing manner.

And the crux of it, as pointed out, IS WHEN YOU EVALUATE THE PRACTIACL DIMENSION OF EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY AND THE PRACTICAL DIMENSION OF THE CLAIMS YOU ARE MAKING:

And that is the crux of the fucking problem here - for Evolutionary psychologists, the historical - the spiritual - the social, all of these categories are just as passive and ontologically unapproachable as a natural environment - if you actually look at the contents of their work, what these humans are adapting to is NOT simply an environment, but a mode of production. The problem, however, is that men and women themselves constitute this mode of production, this FIELD of being, it is not some kind of autonomous, magical force that is in the background, that which men and women CONFORM to - they make it themselves. Such is its ideological nature, and that is why I'm going to slam you with a basic question: What is the practical use of evolutionary psychology? Surely every natural science has a practical use, but tell me, WHAT PRACTICAL USE among ANYONE does evolutionary psychology have? Neuroscience, for example, has medicinal, pharmaceutical value and gives us some insight on how to manipulate neurological processes. So what is the practical insight of evolutionary psychology? What makes it INHERENTLY political, and NOT a natural science? The fact that he only practical use for evolutionary psychology is, and has always been reacting to and narrativizing phenomena which are either extra-biological or sufficiently utno themselves assume the role of dictating biological processes - the only practical use that evolutionary psychologists have given us is to use this "new-found information" to impact policy-making decisions at hte level of government, or the university campus (vis a vis rape), AND SO ON. THIS is what makes it a pseudo-science, largely, its role has been PURELY To perpetuate the existing order and to transform things which are answerable ONLY to the social dimension into naturally ordained inevitable truths. Its practical use? Cannon-fodder for the reaction when feminists fight for laws which on a formal level benefit women in some way. But most liberals won't dismiss evolutionary psychology becuase they are dismissed by it. Many Marxists will even say that "Well there is some truth to it". But one must be a RADICAL here and do the honorable thing (the historically honorable thing, because come the revolution, do you think this "science" would endure? It would be cast off into the dustbin of history, as phrenology was) and say ALL OF EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY IS BULLSHIT. THERE IS NOT ONE CLAIM, OR "HYPOTHESIS" PRODUCED BY EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY WHICH HAS A SHRED OF THE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE NECESSARY TO SUPPORT IT. EVERY SINGLE CLAIM BY EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGISTS IS WHOLLY UNFOUNDED FROM A SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE, IT IS 100% BULLSHIT! The ONLY adaptations as far as humans are concerned which actually matter are those which precisely destroyed any balanced relationship to nature - any kind of innate physiological structures which made humans bound by a single habitat, or ecology. What "selections' for example, account for swimming? Is the "aquatic ape" hypothesis to be taken seriously, after all?

Amidst all of this, "Rafiq is going out on a limb to prove the unproveable". I can't FUCKING believe what I'm reading here.


He's doing all kinds of weird things like calling non-social animals experiencing pleasure impossible (science's verdict: still out),

TELL ME WHAT NON-SOCIAL ANIMALS EXPERIENCE PLEASURE AS IT IS QUALIFIED ON HUMAN TERMS. Not only do non-social animals do not feel pleasure, they do not do anything at all if it is not warranted by a specific psychical reflex. the only reason we're not shit-throwing apes is because we have no physical reflexes - we are dictated by the sum-total of our social relations. Feeling PLEASURE is EXCLUSIVELY a human category - non-human forms of "pleasure", if you can even call them that, are not found among non-social animals. It is quite a leap of faith to even say that bonobos, dolphins and dogs experience pleasure in a way that conforms to human qualifications - the only reason we say they 'experience pleasure' is because they are the only animals (among other social animals) that actively go out of their way to do things that invoke a positive emotional response. Which brings us to another point - non social animals are not even capable of emotions at all. This is especially true for humans, where pleasure is not even dictated on a physical level. If you rub a dog's belly, it will feel pleasure. Perhaps if you stimulate an ape's genetalia it will feel pleasure. But for humans, there are specific psychological pre-conditions for feeling pleasure wherein even if someone is touching your dick in every right way, if you're fantasies are not in-sync you will not enjoy it. That is why to have pleasurable sex, you need experience - most first-time sexual encounters are painfully fucking awkward, weird and unsatisfying.

So no, non-social animals cannot feel pleasure, because pleasure is purely a social category - do you even know what pleasure is you fucking idiot? It refers to an emotion, joy, satisfaction, fulfillment. ANIMALS DO NOT HAVE THIS. THEY ARE LIKE ROBOTS. DOES YOUR FUCKING COMPUTER FEEL PLEASURE? SAYING NON-SOCIAL ANIMALS FEEL PLEASURE IS JUST AS FUCKING STUPID.

[Rafiq]

and female changes during ovulation "myth" (science's verdict: I have read loads of studies to the contrary, have written about this before, and can provide them for those who are interested).

No you fucking idiot, the myth is that women being horny during ovulation (which varies depending on women) is owed to some ADAPTIVE mechanism. That is the myth. As I pointed out, if women are more horny during ovulation, it has more to do with hormonal imbalances, which is why many women are much more horny on their period than during "ovulation". This is not an adaptive mechanism, there is no evidence for that. Why? BECAUSE THERE ARE SPECIFIC BODILY REASONS WHY HORMONAL LEVELS ARE AS THEY ARE DURING OVULATION - are you literally 10 years old? These chemicals are necessary for real bodily functions, THEY DO NOT CONCERN OR DETERMINE THE PSYCHOLOGICAL DOMAIN. I spoke about it before:

Do you know what evidence is? Let me explain: You make some kind of prediction, you make a hypothesis which basically goes along the lines of this: "If this turns out to be true, then it might support this conclusion". That's how that works. But if you start from the get-go with false theoretical presumptions, which they all do, thereby being unable to even CONCEIVE other variables that they have no reason to want to control for (because they do not regard them as scientific variables but just background noise or whatever) then your data is bullshit. I'm not REJECTING the numbers, or the studies themselves - what they YIELD is obviously true, but the CONCLUSIONS they draw from their own data is not. Again, do you deny the evidence that white women are aversed towards black men, biologically, during ovulation? This is a well-documented phenomena. The only thing left is a claim to the metaphysical, of choosing what does, and what doesn't make "common sense" according to pseudo-darwinist principles. But the fact of the matter is that all this demonstareats is a lack of imagination.

You have false theoretical premises, so fuck your mountain of evidence. You have a giant pile of shit, and nothing more. It's funny tha you accuse many of us here of acting ridiculous, when in fact you argue like a child - "LOOK! LEGITIMATE DATA AND NUMBERS!" this means nothing, and you may as well be arguing by merit of divine will. The fact is that studies and "evidence" have definite qualifications for being conducted, ones that can be evaluated, and the conclusions they draw in contrast to the data they yield can be thoroughly analyzed. And as it turns out, the conclusion drawn doesn't support the data - because other conclusions can be drawn from it to, just as easily. What that means is that they don't have enough variables to control for. The reason reactionaries like talking out of their ass and pointing directly to "evidence" is because it is something that doesn't require any degree of critical thinking, it's an argument by authority that only demands you look at the paper and bow before its legitimacy.

In fact, many evo-psych studies point to how on average, white women are more attractive to men across races. Is this because nature willed it so, you fucking idiot? Are women "evolutionarily" (lol) superior if they're white?

Again, I challenge you to provide evidence for this pattern of sexual attractiveness wherein women "seek out more aggressive males" during ovulation in pre-capitalist societies. I'm calling your bluff, and I challenge you to provide evidence for these patterns in pre-capitalist societies. Was there a "friendzone" in the middle ages? Was there a "friendzone" in antiquity? For fuck's sake, there wasn't even a "friendzone" two hundred years ago. In fact the term itself has its origins in the 1990's. Before modernity, platonic love was considered the most pure, the most socially acceptable and praisable kind of love. Being able to control one's beastly inclinations was part of the medieval facade of chivalry, in fact. Platonic love, non-sexual love, did not function in the manner you describe.

That is because present sexuality is the summation of an entanglement of sexual antagonisms and complex social, psychological dimensions. Eroticization is a very specific, complicated thing, and the "Friendzone" is something very specific to modernity. You provided a biological explanation, and I call you out on it saying it's absolutely worthless and irrelevant in understanding its specifialiteis. That's why. I don't care how many renegades can try and make "Marxism" compatible with this, it is still wrong. And before you go harking about how I need to provide "studies" to confirm my rebuttal, remember that I am destroying the theoretical foundations that lead to the conclusions of those studies, and therefore it would be nonsensical to regard "empirical data" here, because it has ambiguous implications. The data, in other words, doesn't equate to the conclusions wrought out from it.

Even if such a correlation was found, which I highly doubt (What studies confirm that women on average are MORE LIKELY to forgo contraceptive methods during ovulation then when they're not?) it would not support the "following" of any genetically shaped practices, it would require further inquiry about other possible variables, and so on.

The fact of the matter forgoing contraceptive methods wouldn't even have any basis in some kind of innate drive to have kids anyway. I love this childish approach to sexuality anyway though. This idea that people are spontaneously inclined to sex i the "heat of the moment" inspires a lack of critical thinking on not only personal experience, but the notion as a general rule - sex is learned, how one expresses their sexuality, how one "woos" women, how women are supposed to respond and react to being "seduced", and furthermore how they seduce all of this is learned. Every single innate biologically based sexual drive can be satisfied through masturbation - and not only does masturbation require immense fantasy to fulfill desire that is socially grounded, so does sex. That is because sexuality is refined on a social level. Sex without fantasy is impossible for this reason - so to claim that women spontaneously "cheat" because of some kind of innate biological mechanism betrays a sense of gross philistinism and an infantile, almost satire-like notion of sexuality. Take fantasy away, and cheating would be infinitely less desirable.

etc. - what you fail to fucking understand is that we've already been through all of this several, several fucking times. None of the claims you propose are scientific ones. None. . You speak of "science", i.e. "science sais this and science sais that" and that only encapsulates how fucking divorced from actual scientific practice you are. SCIENCE DOES NOT FUCKING DO ANYTHING. SCIENCE IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE SYSTEMATIC ACQUISITION OF KNOWLEDGE. "Science" is not a fucking god, it is not a fucking force, it is a METHOD, it refers to PRACTICES. The "scientific" practices of people can be scrutinized, criticized and attacked by merit of their ability to produce information correctly. Don't fucking tell me "science sais this" or "science sais that". What a depraved fucking specacle we live in, what a fucked up society we live in where "science" takes on such a external role, a role of "confirming" things everyone is supposed to agree with while being left to their silly superstitions "science" is too scared to challenge. "Science" he sais with a straight face - "sais otherwise". Science does not have "verdicts" you fucking idiot. Verdicts can be wrought from scientific practices and methods, but "science" has none, because science isn't some magical fucking "truth wand". I have thoroughly criticized those practices both here and the past several, several times on scientific grounds - i.e. that they rae not scientific at all. Why? BECAUSE BOURGEOIS SCIENCE IS ONLY EVER CAPABLE OF CONCEIVING NATURAL SCIENCES, THE MINUTE THEY APPROXIMATE THESE TO THE SOCIAL IS WHAT IS CALLED METAPHYSICS - and when they do nto approximate it to the social, they have religion and theology. ONLY MARXISM is capable of approaching this dimension scientifically - hence the PRACTICAL aspect of Marxism being its propensity to change the world. Evolutionary psychology, conversely, seeks to masturbate the phallus of capital.


However, don't take that to mean there's no nurture/environmental element; there is, and it's a big one.

And we have nothing to fucking do with ti. We ridicule such a debate. Such a debate is set up in favor of the "nature" crowd in the first place because BOTH ARE ECOLOGICAL CATEGORIES.


The higher your testosterone, caused by both genetic and environmental factors, the more dominant you will be, and the less submissive. The lower your testosterone, the more submissive you will be, and the less dominant.

No, you fucking moron, because what you pitifully fail to understand is the reality that "submission" and "dominance" ARE PURELY SOCIAL CATEGORIES. They are not magically embedded or inscribed in the hormonal levels of humans. These things only have meaning because of their social implications, at the level of consciousness. If you're more genetically susceptible to being able to type faster on a keyboard (which is bullshit, but let's play the devil's advocate), THERE IS NO KEYBOARD GENE, NOTHING ABOUT YOUR DNA HAS ANY REGARD FOR KEYBOARDS. So WHY testosterone confers "dominance", for example, has NOTHING to do with "genetics". If you are born with less testosterone, that might have different social implications as far as your sexual identity is concerned, sure - but the sexual identity has fuck all to do with your testosterone levels. When things become determined on a level of arbitrariness and trivial, ahistorical randomness, the more susceptible they are to innate trivialities of difference between people- hence "twin studies" and the notion that people have a "gene" for their favorite color - it is beyond fucking stupid.


Females are naturally more nurturing, males are naturally more conquest-driven. You see it in children, you see it in all kinds of hormonal stuff, etc.

That you see it in children PROVES IT HAS NO PHYSIOLOGICAL BASIS ON THE LEVEL OF CAUSALITY. Because male and female children are - for al intensive purposes - sexually identical as far as their hormone levels go. There is no difference between male and female children as far as their "testosterone" and so on. These only come into play when the child enters puberty. So if they're exhibiting different behaviors, what the fuck does that tell you? Is it some kind of disparity in the brain's structure? But we already went over the countless examples of how adult males can be gendered to be female.


To quote Baumeister:

Good then, quote him, what, have you not even the decency to spare your hero from my wrath? Send my response to the motherfucker over email too, if you want, he'll get knocked the fuck down over you as a surrogate if you wish. Are you literally so intellectually weak that you can't even come up with an argument extrapolating from the quoted text? Are you literally letting motherfuckers argue for you? I can play that game too, in fact, I can address the motherfucker ten fold just from hand-picked sources. But since I'm not a fucking coward, I will do it myself. What, you think you can hide behind figures who sound distinguished? Listen child, we are Marxists. We are not intimidated by big names or by the superstitious totems of "legitimacy" your rotten fucking order confers upon individuals. Marxism has turned the dumbest and most ignorant people into distinguished champions of our theoretical tradition unmatched by their bourgeois adversaries. Marxism, which seeks to diffuse scientific knowledge among the broad masses, does not care or deal with "credentials". So quote whoever the fuck you want, kiddo, and they'll be fucking destroyed like anyone else touting the same nonsense.

Keep in mind I have addressed all of this in the past. That I do not divulge into greater detail here is owed solely to the fact that there's no reason for me to repeat myself. If users want a more detailed response to this little tidbit, I can provide it, however:


I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.

The conclusion drawn are absolutely fucking nonsensical. You need to first take into account the fact that this refers to all humans that are alive today. As we know, before the Neolithic revolution, drastic changes in human sexual changes have occurred which can account for this fact. But numerous possibilities exist - as Engels pointed out, polygyny was likely to be the predominant sexual practice of many pre-historic hunter gatherer societies. We also take into account the fact that in order for humans societies to be reproduced, ritualistically ordained practices wherein women in a state of pregnancy's survival was more important, so in situations of famine or food precarity, feeding women probably took primacy over feeding men, or their husbands. Keep in mind this is purely a proposed explanation before the Neolithic - afterwards, the reasons for less men being able to have children are rather obvious - acting as soldiers, and so on. So "appreciating" this fact, as this slimy, disgusting fucking opportunist would have us, does not lead us to the conclusion that there is any validity to evolutionary psychology whatsoever. In fact, what is infinitely fucking stupid from this is that it does not matter that more women had offspring than men one bit as far as the claims go - even if both men and women had offspring, survival was so precarious at that time that this wouldn't have made it or broke it as far as a metaphysical, ad hoc assertion that innate evolutionary structures were formed, or are responsible for modern-day behaviors. As far as history is concerned, there is no reason to think that the ability for men to have kids was owed to anything more than chance - pure chance, plain and simple. Even if the ecological mating practices of very early humans (not homo sapiens sapiens, but much earlier) accounts for the sexual dimorphism in men and women, i.e. men on average being stronger, this sais nothing about EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY or sexuality being owed to any innate physiological "traits" (that concern consciousness) women would have found favorable in those societies. It sais someting about the fact that humans, born into this thresher of a world, are forced to cope with the physiological realities they were bestowed with and articulate them on a social level. Perhaps we might be preprared to believe that the relatively large size of men's penises is owed to their ability to pleasure women more. This sais nothing about an innate preference for bigger dicks among women on a psychological level, but the reality that it may just be more physically pleasurable in touching the right buttons.


Basically, the traits that were most effective for reproduction would be at the center of evolutionary psychology. It would be shocking if these vastly different reproductive odds for men and women failed to produce some personality differences

Then prepared to be perpetually shocked, because they didn't. Again, a personality is a social category. One doesn't have a "personality" outside of their social totality - if this was owed to some kind of autonomous biological process, then personalities would remain stagnant across historical contexts on an essential level. What you fail to appreciate is the fact that biological processes concern SPECIFIC things and account for SPECIFIC ecological scenarios. Personality traits are not, and cannot be selected on a sexual level because they are not reducible to any kind of innate biological or physiological structures. Sure, one's genetic constitution might make one predisposed to like apples more than oranges - but as for apple or orange production, and their societal significance this will make absolutely no fucking difference. The same genetic variances that might account for your preference for apples, could also account for your preference of dog shit over cat shit. Evolutionary psychologists already make a leap of fucking faith in assuming that personality traits have a biological basis - when in fact, they do not. It amounts to pure fucking superstition - let's say only men who hunted well could reproduce. THERE IS NO PHYSIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE ON THIS LEVEL BETWEEN HUMANS 80,000 YEARS AGO AND HUMANS TODAY. Again, there was no, and is no "natural state" wherein modern humans were selected for - the minute humans became homo sapiens sapiens is the minute they no longer were bound by ANY innate, autonomous biological processes which "determined" their behavior. For fuck's sake, look at humans - they are purely helpless, naked creatures. A human without clothing is like a bird without its feathers. There is no animal like this, no animal that actively transforms the world around it. Finally, the notion that men had any innate propensity to have offspring is also a fucking lie - if men "competed" for women, they did not compete for "baby-making machines", they competed for the ability to - much like today - actually enjoy the pleasures of sex. It is ridiculous to think, however, that marriage as we know it today, or having to "compete" for women as such existed before the Neolithic at all. Throughout every historic epoch, the reasons why men might want to have kids, or more kids, are reasons that are answerable solely to the reproduction of that society. You don't need any kind of fucking innate evolutionary magical thing to want to have more kids when it is, for example, explicable for social reasons - like having more people to tend to your land, or in the case of the very first instances of polygamy (recorded by several anthropologists), have more wives because this might guarantee more workers to till your fields - as the first role women assumed in their slavery was that of an agricultural slave. Let's take a moment to actually think about the idea that "certain traits are selected for". What here are consigned the role of traits? Things that concern HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS. How the FUCK is, for example, a preference for the color black and wearing black clothing selected for? How the fuck does this "exist" inside people? It's complete fucking nonsense. The reality is that there is no pre-determined trajectory path of human behavior. Humans only become humans by mimicking other humans. That's plainly fucking it - EVERY SINGLE HUMAN SOCIETY, whether we're talking about the ones that existed 80,000 B.C. or 2 thousand years ago, required extensive rituals, and complete subservience to the social dimension in order to reproduce themselves. People think of hunter-gatherers much like how many probably used to think of adam and eve - naive, mindless, and so on - when the reality is that hunter-gatherers were just as "crazy" and non-animalistic as humans are today. Hunter-gatherers were just as much faced with the existential dilemnas we are faced with today - that is why they had and continue to have vast and intricate mythologies. The fall from paradise did not occur during the Neolithic, it occurred the moment the most elementary axiom of human experience was taken over, and assumed by language (and therefore the social domain). Traits mean different things in historic context. Even if you are more genetically susceptible to prefer video games over movies, the implications of this in a society 3000 years ago would be different. There are no trans-historically "selected" traits, because in no two historic epochs is the expression of those purported"traits" identical. Selecting for traits refers to an ecology, and a balance with nature. Humans, again, have none.


Later in this talk we will ponder things like, why was it so rare for a hundred women to get together and build a ship and sail off to explore unknown regions, whereas men have fairly regularly done such things?

Every bourgeois ideologue commits the same fatal fucking error of assuming all of human history, that is, all the events which proceeded modern day society as being ontologically the same as far as how definitive they were in defining what it means to be a human. It is unforgivable for people to look at neolithic, pre-civilized tribal societies and call those "hunter-gatherer societies", it is even more fucking stupid to make false, misleading ontological propositions about women "not sailing on ships to unknown regions" because this refers to the historic period, or civilization. And again, the reason for this is rather simple - a rudimentary evaluation of how those societies function, the several RITUALS, customs and socially-coordinated behaviors that were ordained were present, allows one to understand PRECISELY why it was not "women who built ships to sail off to explore unknown regions". This is owed purely not even to simple burdensome physiological inevitabilities - by the time humans were sailing ships to unknown regions, the sexual slavery of women had already fucking long occured. That this was "rare" sais nothing about, again, SOME KIND OF ESSENTIAL, INNATE PHYSIOLOGICAL REASON FOR ITS ABSENCE. You keep making this FUCKING LEAP OF FAITH, you keep assuming that BECAUSE phenomena was present or not present historically, it is - by merit of human existence physiologically - an inevitability. Are you saying it is impossible for this to fucking happen? No? Okay, so why is it unlikely? Is it because women are not hardwired to be explorers, or is it because the roles that were conferred to women in societies that embarked on such explorations were in fact roles which disallowed them from even thinking about being able to do this? It's like saying "Why is it so rare for slaves in human societies to make great discoveries or become emperors?" It is literally the fucking epitome of stupidity. Let me ask you a question - why are there, on average, less Africans who are engaged in the field of quantum mechanics than others? Are they inherently stupid? Why are there, on average, probably more jews who compared to others occupy places in media? Why are there, on average, more asians who own asian restaurants? I can fucking go on. That something exists, or has not existed, does not mean it has an essential basis, or was determined on an essential level. For FUCK'S SAKE.

How can a motherfucker literally say this and get away with it? Do you know how stupid saying this is? The question itself is framed in such a way that it is a pure fucking abstraction. Why is it so rare? Why WOULDN'T it be rare, given non-biological historical considerations you stupid motherfucker?


The odds are good that men will come along and offer sex and you’ll be able to have babies. All that matters is choosing the best offer. We’re descended from women who played it safe.

And I want you to thoroughly fucking explain to me why women, for some inevitable reason, would care about having babies. No, think about it. HAVING BABIES, IN MOST CASES, WAS FACILITATED ON ALMOST A RELIGIOUS LEVEL. Having babies was ceremonial, it was ritualistic. Like lol, do you literally think pre-historic humans arbitraily had fucking kids like animals and didn't make anything of it? Are you literally stupid? Again, animals do not care about reproducing. They reproduce for reasons that are outside any will, consciousness or intent. It is a result of physical reflexes. So tell me why women would give a fuck about reproducing outside a specific context? Do ou even know what contraceptives are? Like, you realize women were capable of consciously deciding whether or not they wanted to have kids, right? You realize that women were perfectly capable of CONSCIOUSLY assessing when a time would be appropriate, or not appropriate to have kids based on the logic of that society. That historically most women preferred to "play it safe", let's assume that is true - THE PROPESNITY FOR THEM TO PLAY IT SAFE HAD NOTHING TO FUCKING DO WITH SOME KIND OF INNATE MAGICAL THING INSIDE OF THEM OR A COMPLEX CONGLOMERATION OF PHSYICAL STIMULI - IT HAD EVERYTHING TO DO WITH JUSTIFYING THEIR SURVIVAL ON THE LEVEL OF THE SOCIAL. Think, how the fuck do people justify wanting to live? It has nothing to do with instinct. Every human society has complex practices, SPECIFIC complex social behaviors and interactions. There is not a single behavior in modern day society which is justifiable because of what pre-historic savannah humans were doing. NONE.


For men, the outlook was radically different. If you go along with the crowd and play it safe, the odds are you won’t have children. Most men who ever lived did not have descendants who are alive today. Their lines were dead ends. Hence it was necessary to take chances, try new things, be creative, explore other possibilities. Sailing off into the unknown may be risky, and you might drown or be killed or whatever, but then again if you stay home you won’t reproduce anyway.

I literally can't believe this kind of fairy-tale metaphysics. No regard for evidence whatsoever. This is literally just as true as any creation myth hunter-gatherers might have had about the world, or about humans. You know what I love though? The inconsistency in this. So men "weren't going to reproduce anyway" and that's why they went on voyages. Really? Is there any historical data to confirm the idea that men who went on voyages were unable to have children, and unable to mate? And again, why do men care about having kids? I don't give a fuck about having them. Am I not a man? Furthermore, when men are brought news of pregnancy in the 21st century, do you fucking think they're just jumping with joy? Most men purposefully try and avoid "passing on their DNA" BECAUSE PASSING ON DNA IS A CONSEQUENCE, NOT AN UNDERLYING REASON FOR REPRODUCING. If you ask most people why they fucking reproduce, it isn't because they want to "pass on their genes", no one, literally no one gives a fuck about this conscious or subconsciously. They say this because it inspires meaning into the core of their being - it allows them to assume a role which is ritualistically ordained on the level of society. For most people "having kids", if it is not out of material necessity, is literally because you want to experience raising a kid, you want to be given the ability to feel like you have a real role in society, you want to grasp the core of the human experience as it exists in modern day societies. Humans can very well have a society where no one reproduces. The only problem is that such a society would not reproduce itself. So the propensity to have children does not have to be ordained on a biological level, it is easily understood as being ordained on a SOCIAL one - hence the reason why the only time people have fucking kids is when it conforms to a certain number of social considerations. Otherwise, explain away contraceptives.

The huge difference in reproductive success very likely contributed to some personality differences, because different traits pointed the way to success. Women did best by minimizing risks, whereas the successful men were the ones who took chances. Ambition and competitive striving probably mattered more to male success (measured in offspring) than female. Creativity was probably more necessary, to help the individual man stand out in some way.


Even the sex drive difference was relevant: For many men, there would be few chances to reproduce and so they had to be ready for every sexual opportunity. If a man said “not today, I have a headache,” he might miss his only chance.

There is no evidence that men "naturally" have a higher sex drive. In fact, where it concerns purely being dictated by hormones or what have you, women actually have a higher sex drive. Furthermore, any child can understand that the historic reasons for men's higher propensity to have sex are very simple: Women were enslaved and, unless they were prostitutes, belonged to a male, whether their father or a husband. If it was any other way, then the phenomena of women being stoned and killed for adultery would not have been present. In most human societies, women were punished or killed for adultery. I guess promiscuity was "selected away", and women's "obedience" was selected for, right? The logic is 100% identical to the justifications YOU HAVE PROVIDED. But as we know, women are just as capable of wanting sex as men. In fact, the notion that men's propensity to search for sex, or want sex, has anything to do with innate sexual drives is a fucking lie. Any man can understand that the impulse to fuck women is usually not even owed to being horny, but needing to feel like you're a "man". Such is the nature of our hypersexualized society. I mean this motherfucker literally takes archteypal cliche's of postwar de-industrial society and confers this as some kind of universal trait to all of human history. "Not today, I have a headache". Is this motherfucker 12? can he literally not understand history? You can pull 100s of explanations out of your ass and it would be just as scientific. If it was more common for women to say "No, let's fuck" then you can have some stupid asshole claiming "See? If women weren't open to having sex, then there would be no babies". It's easy to draw ad hoc conclusions from the wealth of behaviors exhibited in our society, but the MAGNITUDE OF POSSIBILITIES that are JUST AS VIABLE for human survival that are not reflected in our society disprove this. That is to say, there is nothing UNIQUELY necessary for human survival for men to have a higher sex drive, or for only 40% of men to have reproduced (is this author claiming that the men who did not reproduce, in fact, did not have high sex drives? IF so, what does that say about the claim that men "explored" unknown regions because of their inability to "get mates"? THE AMOUNT OF NONSENSE ENTANGLED IN THIS IS RIDICULOUS). Every man could have had the same sex drive and the numbers could still be the same.


Look at it this way. Most women have only a few children, and hardly any have more than a dozen — but many fathers have had more than a few, and some men have actually had several dozen, even hundreds of kids.

That is a baseless generalization. For one, most poor people who are monogamous will have many children. So most women will indeed have "many children" if they are not living in the developed world, which compromises a small proportion of the total human population. In fact, what you fail to point out is that it is the modern societies which are most promiscuous and hypersexualized, with you know, the same "nightclub" culture that evolutionary psychology derives all of its grand scientific revelations from extrapolating, and it is precisely these societies, as I stated before, which have the lowest fertility rates. But even so, the instances wherein men have many children have nothing to do with a propensity to actually have kids for the sake of passing on your DNA, but because of hte social implications of this with regard to a society. Without this, men would not have had so many kids in history, or even in some African societies today.


To put this in more subjective terms: When I walk around and try to look at men and women as if seeing them for the first time, it’s hard to escape the impression (sorry, guys!) that women are simply more likeable and lovable than men.

[...]

Tradeoffs again: perhaps nature designed women to seek to be lovable, whereas men were designed to strive, mostly unsuccessfully, for greatness.

And the shameless philistinism here is yet again absolutely fucking shocking. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a self-proclaimed scientist. He is saying that his impressions of women that he derives on the street support the conclsuion that "Mabe nature designed women to seek to be lovable".

You know what this reminds me of? It reminds me of reading the ridiculous explanations of the world found among thinkers of antiquity, like Plutarch. It reminds me of the Arabs of Bagdhad who said blacks were overcooked, and therefore wild savages, and that whites were undercooked, and therefore equally wild savages. This kind of ridiculous - juvenile shit makes you really see how we are not at the end of history at all. One can recall looking back on this kind of ridiculous shit hundreds of years from now and laughing at such thinkers. Because women seeking to be "loveable" is a condition of woman's sexuality in present day capitalist society, and nothing more. Observing this, and assuming it to be an inevitable consequence of nature - none the less saying nature "designed" this to be the case (Oh my god, I can't believe what I'm reading, I literally can't fucking believe this shit - I actually believe I have gotten dumber just from taking this seriously alone).


He took big risks and eventually conquered most of the known world. For him, the big risks led to huge payoffs in offspring.

Ladies and gentlemen, this fucking idiot is saying that Ghengis Khan underwent his vast campaigns, the expansions which occurred to him, are all reducible and explicable to the fact that Ghenghis Khan was slave to an innate biological prerogative to have as much children as possible. The history of the Mongolian Empire, in other words, is explicable in terms of Ghenghis Khan having the will and propensity to have as much children as possible. Let's actually consider the fact that the rapes occurred by Ghenghis Khan, or by his armies, were not even reducible to sexual desire. Although exaggerated by the standards of military engagement via orientalism- they were a means by which enemies were humiliated and rendered subservient. This is common in the history of warfare - it is a form of psychological warfare. The "risks" Khan took, had no regard for the "payoff" of being able to fuck so many people. Even if those were his personal motivations, which they were not, it would say nothing about why it actually happened. What you fail to understand is that second to the practice of raping women en masse on a military level, the phenomena of raping women and then killing them while their husbands watched was also incredibly common. The practice of brutally murdering indigenous women after having raped them was so common among the Europeans arriving in the Americans and those in Africa that it's not even up for fucking debate to talk about whether this was done to "have more offspring". THESE ASSERTIONS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN METAPHYSICAL FAIRY TALES. NOTHING MORE. There is nothing empirically more convincing about them to, say, the story of Noah's Ark. It's almost as though you cannot possibly fathom that sex actually has a dimension outside of reproduction. Does most sex result in pregnancy? No, it doesn't. Do most men have sex, either directly or indirectly, with the desire to have babies? They do not. End of story.

And now I await your response. Ladies and gentlemen, I leave you with an exemplary historical example of women's inherent, natural propensity to be submission which Major K. not only proposes exists, but defends on an ethical level. Enjoy:

While I was in the boat, I captured a very beautiful Carib woman, whom the said Lord Admiral gave to me. When I had taken her to my cabin she was naked—as was their custom. I was filled with a desire to take my pleasure with her and attempted to satisfy my desire. She was unwilling, and so treated me with her nails that I wished I had never begun. But—to cut a long story short—I then took a piece of rope and whipped her soundly, and she let forth such incredible screams that you would not have believed your ears. Eventually we came to such terms, I assure you, that you would have thought that she had been brought up in a school for whores. from Michele da Cuneo, one of those who accompanied Columbus to the Americas. "evolutionary payoff" indeed, they will have us believe, to de-sensitize the horror.

[Major K.]

Okay, I should probably come clean. I have been trolling you guys (kudos to all who suspected this).

I'm sure you're all familiar with Cunningham's law. If not, it's that the best way to get the right answer on the Internet is not to ask a question, but to post the wrong answer, or in this case, a violently different interpretation of reality.

Basically this all started when I was talking with my friend who teaches men how to get laid as his profession, and I was doubting a lot of the stuff he was saying, but not able to put my finger on anything concrete. A lot of his conclusions just seemed... wrong.

So I took his argument and put it on here in paraphrase form, looking for some bounce-back, being interested in what y'all's attitude towards his position would be, expecting a good bit of volatility.

Btw, that doesn't mean I'm not an idiot. At the end of the day, I've never really thought all that much about this issue either way before this week. I just try and operate on a person-to-person basis, and collaborate with people outside gender stereotypes.

But hold on a second – how did I have such convincing replies then?

Simple.

I didn't write them. Well, sorta I did. What I did was I emailed my dating advice friend and put your guys' feedback to him, then used his responses as the basis of my replies here. I also took some info from articles from around the web that fit together with that viewpoint as well, as this thread developed.

So what have I learned through this provocation? Here are some quotes from Rafiq’s last post that I agree with:

1) the expression of these innate, physiological processes (such as hormones, having a vagina, ETC.) and how society conceives them in its own reproduction ARE NOT DETERMINED BY ANY PRE-EXISTING PSYCHOLOGICAL STRUCTURES THAT EXIST FROM BIRTH.

a. Yeah, and the whole testosterone argument from earlier would require causal evidence, but at best what is known only implies correlation. And even if there was causation, one would have to limit their conclusions to the relevant domains.

2) AN ADAPTATION BY NATURE IS AN ECOLOGICAL CATEGORY. THERE ARE NO "Different" WAYS AN ADAPTATION CAN EXPRESS ITSELF. YOU EITHER ADAPT FOR A SPECIFIC KIND OF BEHAVIOR UNDER SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES, OR THERE IS NO ADAPTATION AT ALL….saying that women are "hardwired" to be submissive means that there is a specific means by which this submissiveness is expressed across history, BUT THIS IS NOT SO.

3) Women conform to a gender. Does this gender assume and determine the expression of biological processes? Yes, and not the other way around. Otherwise, why would gender even exist? Gender exists as a way to reproduce sexuality in such a way that reproduces society. Women's "submission" is absolutely and wholly tied to this insofar as women must submit to commodification, to the spiritual prostitution of capitalist society.

a. Linking it back to commodification here I think is crucial to emphasize. Following this logic, men's "domination" would also be wholly tied to commodification, no? This seems to open up the (likely passion inducing) question of responsibility.

4) my initial argument ALREADY ACCOUNTED for the proposition that "Only the wussy girl-men who don't have da testosterone become gendered as females":

5) Do some men, by merit of physiological realities, such as being born with a stronger chest, or more "testosterone", find it easier to conform to their gender? They do, but their gender is irreducible to such characteristics - the gender exists as a social externality which they must conform to, actively, consciously and subconsciously throughout their psycho-sexual development…What we consider "masculine" could have been considered something else in previous societies, and vice versa. For a long time, for example, the color pink was a boy's color, it was a masculine color.

a. Nice point.

6) The minute women want to affirmatively desire for the sake of desiring is the minute they are no longer conforming to their gender. This doesn't just mean talking about men in a sexual way, but desiring men for sexual fulfillment that is not contingent upon how they, in their imagination, conceive the magnitude of their own desirability.

a. Of course.

7) Man is the totality of his social relations.

8) We Marxists say IT IS NEITHER. Why? Because both "nature" and "nurture" are ecological categories. Humans are not ecological animals - they actively transform nature and in the process transform themselves. The argument is fucking stupid because you can easily just say "well, how people nurture is naturally defined" - you can arbitrarily pick and choose however the fuck you want this to work.

a. Lol, nice.

9) submission" here is a pure abstraction once we add a historical dimension to it, it refers to NOTHING MORE than the slavery of women by man - as structured genders - saying that it has an ESSENTIAL basis, a biological or inevitable basis would mean that its expression would not vary. But its expression not only varies, it is entirely different across historic epochs and totalities.

a. I wonder how Foucault would fit into this? I’ve read a bit about his approach to the history of madness, and this reminds me of that.

10) For Evolutionary psychologists, the historical - the spiritual - the social, all of these categories are just as passive and ontologically unapproachable as a natural environment - if you actually look at the contents of their work, what these humans are adapting to is NOT simply an environment, but a mode of production. The problem, however, is that men and women themselves constitute this mode of production, this FIELD of being, it is not some kind of autonomous, magical force that is in the background, that which men and women CONFORM to - they make it themselves.

11) the only practical use that evolutionary psychologists have given us is to use this "new-found information" to impact policy-making decisions at the level of government, or the university campus (vis a vis rape), AND SO ON. THIS is what makes it a pseudo-science, largely, its role has been PURELY To perpetuate the existing order and to transform things which are answerable ONLY to the social dimension into naturally ordained inevitable truths.

12) THERE ARE SPECIFIC BODILY REASONS WHY HORMONAL LEVELS ARE AS THEY ARE DURING OVULATION - are you literally 10 years old? These chemicals are necessary for real bodily functions, THEY DO NOT CONCERN OR DETERMINE THE PSYCHOLOGICAL DOMAIN.

a. Nice point. P.S. I’ve aged a year!

13) I'm not REJECTING the numbers, or the studies themselves - what they YIELD is obviously true, but the CONCLUSIONS they draw from their own data is not.

14) BOURGEOIS SCIENCE IS ONLY EVER CAPABLE OF CONCEIVING NATURAL SCIENCES, THE MINUTE THEY APPROXIMATE THESE TO THE SOCIAL IS WHAT IS CALLED METAPHYSICS - and when they do not approximate it to the social, they have religion and theology. ONLY MARXISM is capable of approaching this dimension scientifically - hence the PRACTICAL aspect of Marxism being its propensity to change the world. Evolutionary psychology, conversely, seeks to masturbate the phallus of capital.

a. ahaha!

15) And we have nothing to fucking do with it. We ridicule such a debate. Such a debate is set up in favor of the "nature" crowd in the first place because BOTH ARE ECOLOGICAL CATEGORIES.

16) "submission" and "dominance" ARE PURELY SOCIAL CATEGORIES. They are not magically embedded or inscribed in the hormonal levels of humans. These things only have meaning because of their social implications, at the level of consciousness.

17) You know what this reminds me of? It reminds me of reading the ridiculous explanations of the world found among thinkers of antiquity, like Plutarch

a. Lol, my friend is actually a huge fan of Plutarch.

Interesting stuff -- thanks everyone for your replies!

K.

[Comrade Jacob]

I think the OP is confused and fell over and busted open a can of worms.

[Sewer Socialist]

I figured out you weren't writing a paper pretty quickly. But your post didn't delve into why your friend is an evolutionary psychologist.

It's the ideological justification of what he's selling, which is the objectification of women. Some sort of ideology is necessary to make many people comfortable with this misogyny; wrapping it up in pseudo-science makes it more palatable.

This science is of course laughable; it's just imagining scenarios in which what they're selling could have plausibly occurred. The imaginary scene of the cave- men and pregnant woman is pretty much indistinguishable from an actual parody of this sort of idealism.

Does this mean you're not a reactionary after all?

[Major K.]

I figured out you weren't writing a paper pretty quickly. But your post didn't delve into why your friend is an evolutionary psychologist.

It's the ideological justification of what he's selling, which is the objectification of women. Some sort of ideology is necessary to make many people comfortable with this misogyny; wrapping it up in pseudo-science makes it more palatable.

This science is of course laughable; it's just imagining scenarios in which what they're selling could have plausibly occurred. The imaginary scene of the cave- men and pregnant woman is pretty much indistinguishable from an actual parody of this sort of idealism.

Does this mean you're not a reactionary after all?

In general I don't think I'm a reactionary, no. But in some things I probably am. We all are in some ways.

////

To your statement about objectifying women, I'm imagining how he'd respond...

He'd probably point out that women WANT to be objectified... but only by a person who she is objectifying in turn.

I think it'd be pretty fair to say that his active definition of attraction would be mutual objectification. More technically, he'd perhaps break it down as the sum of perceived social value + attainability + investment.

////

He's pointed out a distinction before between nonsexists, benevolent sexists, and hostile sexists.

He'd argue that an easy way of distinguishing these is that the benevolent sexist looks on caringly at members of the opposite sex and enjoys the differences; the hostile sexist glares at the opposite sex and resents the differences; and the nonsexist is kind of off in his own gender neutral mental utopia and doesn’t really register any of the differences.

Here's a study that uses these categories:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-009-9665-x

The results from this study of female German students’ opinions of the various sorts of men were:

Hostile sexist: rated as the least likeable, least sexually attractive, and most common of all varieties of men

Nonsexist: rated as much more likeable, a fair bit more sexually attractive, and slightly less common than the hostile sexist

Benevolent sexist: rated as significantly more likeable and sexually attractive than either the hostile sexist or the nonsexist, and a good chunk rarer, too

He's used this as evidence that women prefer masculine men who treat them like feminine women to equality-minded nice guys... and prefer BOTH types of men to BITTER men who dislike women.

From the position of someone whose goal is to help guys get laid, it makes sense to encourage men to be benevolent sexists (think Harrison Ford or Ryan Gosling).

But from the position of someone trying to eliminate gender roles entirely, adapting yourself to a society that uses them is not really your priority.

He'd probably conclude that men are men and women are women and relationships work better for both parties when each accepts their roles and lives up to them. And you know what... he'd be right. If given the option, people are generally happier adapting to the society they are in than rebelling against it... for obvious reasons.

[John Nada]

Major K. why do you keep linking to studies which most(likely including yourself) can only see the abstract? Without actually seeing the methods behind the conclusion, that doesn't tell shit. You're just searching for shit to support you preconceive sexist prejudices.

And "your friend" is likely Major K. in third person. Repeat your sexist(and homophobic) shit in third person a poor attempt to cover your own reactionary beliefs.

[Major K.]

Major K. why do you keep linking to studies which most(likely including yourself) can only see the abstract? Without actually seeing the methods behind the conclusion, that doesn't tell shit. You're just searching for shit to support you preconceive sexist prejudices.

And "your friend" is likely Major K. in third person. Repeat your sexist(and homophobic) shit in third person a poor attempt to cover your own reactionary beliefs.

Nah, I'm just quoting stuff from article's he's written. I didn`t even look at that link, tbh -- just quoting.

[Sewer Socialist]

I don't actually care what an evolutionary psychologist has to say. Like I said, it's just a bunch of misogynist ideology I've already heard before.

[Armchair Partisan]

And "your friend" is likely Major K. in third person. Repeat your sexist(and homophobic) shit in third person a poor attempt to cover your own reactionary beliefs.

I agree with that, but even if it's not the case, I don't see why someone should be excused for what they've admitted to be trolling.

[Os Cangaceiros]

This bullshit has gone on long enough. Closed.