Deliberate Consent Violation

Of course I said my ‘wife’.

My fellow planeteer, I think you take a first person identification a bit too figuratively.

Do you actually believe that expression is one of possessive ownership rather then self identification of who she married? My god man you take yourself too seriously. It’s a social contract, one of intention to stand by another person through think and thin. Too take their cares as your own. To share and cooperate, to be yin to their yang. It’s a recognition of love on going, a soul mate sort of acknowledgement.

Psychopaths might get hung up, not being able to draw a distinction. Lost their grip. If you’re on meds, you may have missed your last dose, Manic and all, as you’ve explained.

Man that is some psychotic thinking. A monogamous relationship yields protection. I’m not going sleeping around and risk exposing her to some some fucked up disease cause I’ve got to get my rocks off, and I hope she does the same for me. That’s her choice. I couldn’t stop her if I tried. We’re clean, and I intend to stay that way. I hope she does too.

You don’t get to define the deal.

Come get me. You’ve got “all these powers”, I give you my permission. If you can’t, then you’ve got nothing but a psychologically interesting break from reality. If you can’t, you should seek out some help immediately. If you can, well I’m not all that attached to humanity anyway, it’s a self conceded psychotic species that has no respect for life. Not it’s own, not any other. The planets been smacked up side the head on more then one occasion, and life carried on. I say smack it again.

Don’t go disrespecting Mars now.

Unless you’re going to get back on some path to recovery, I shouldn’t be encouraging you. I get a sense you’ve had altercations with authorities in your past.

Do you want to get into this with me mowk …??

Ok.

If I was a psychopath trying to get laid, the first thing I’d do is buy a hat with a pot leaf on it and wear a sports jersey.

Even wearing a sports jersey, let alone watching games shows your conspicuous consumption aggression. You come across like you’re mister innocent here. You’re not.

The subconscious mind interprets “my wife” differently than “the woman I’m with”. You’re abusing the subconscious mind with mind control techniques to show evidence that you abuse people and are interested in procuring human slaves JUST to get a woman to fuck you. It’s detestable.

I bet you’re one of those douchebags who asks how peoples day is going!!

There is a factual answer to this question which makes the question irrelevant “there are some things I appreciate about the day.”

But I bet you’re one of those guys who occasionally says “fine” instead.

This signals to females that you are “fine” with all of the horrors of the world. She will see you as the Dick psychopathic fuck you actually are and fuck you.

See, the thing is mowk, you’re EXTREMELY naive.

I have a discipline you can’t even imagine right now, you’d have to be my student for years.

Getting your dream girl to have sex with me is not hard.

Having a yes means yes sexual realationship requires that you crawl out of your shell and grow up.

Diseases in polyamory aren’t an issue.

Sex is so stratified, that almost any woman you sleep with has fucked 10,000 men (through proxy as well)

If you had more polyamory and less stratification, it’d actually be SAFER!!

But you don’t know things like this.

You don’t like my tone??

I don’t like your ignorant smugness.

You’re destroying the planet WAY more than I am.

I do.
Bring it. Not that bullshit in your previous post.
Bring it. Be honest with me.

I brought it. You called it bullshit.

Mowk, you are so pussy whipped that you can’t tell right from wrong even when explicated.

You try to come off as the more cordial poster, but in real life, you are the viscous aggressor.

I have every right to talk to you the way I do, because the way you talk to me is a billion times worse.

My judgement of you stands:

You are EXTREMELY naive!!!

That’s not a crime.

But let’s not pretend like you’re a fucking saint here.

Do you see the creep; obviously not. Starting out talking about you and slowly shifting focus away from your self.

So answer me, have you had altercations with authorities. Can you even tell what honesty is?

Tell us how you’ll control my will like a robot then do it. And let’s make it interesting, like I’m a robot, control me such that I am convinced utterly and totally your argument is the god’s honest truth, any one of them. Prove it. Stop your fucking song and dance around the pokie and prove it.

You have as much time as required. Fold a little time portal and do it yesterday. I’ll dance with you. I am not an innocent or any fuckin’ saint. Never claimed I was. I’ll dance with you too. I’ve stuck my nose in worse shit before. And let’s compare our CO2 foot prints just for fun. Let’s play the less guilty game. Let’s play your game. I’m tapping my toe now to that beat.

Use your self proclaimed fantastic power. Your hyperdimensional mirror realities. Your time has come to walk it. Show me some worn leather. Let it go. You hate me. Use your power Luke.

Bring it. I grant you what ever permission your code requires. Nothing is stopping you.

One warning down, two to go, I’ll spend number two on you. You’re worth it aren’t you? I think so.

I don’t mind weighing in on the contents of the link, as I’ve already covered the topic on other threads.
I’m not “in anyone’s camp” here, I’m just explaining the current state of Ethology based on scientific evidence and theory - in relation to the contents of the link.

In the link, you address the “Three Abuses”, and they all certainly feature in common female behaviour, but they’re completely understandable considering the female role in human reproduction.
They all boil down to the fact that sexual reproduction is far more physiologically costly to the female than the male.

The logic that follows from this simple but fundamental fact is that if a female is to get pregnant, if they’re not predisposed to having the maximum investment in their offspring, they’re incurring a large physiological cost with not enough reproductive benefit to better ensure the continued reproductive success of their descendants that carry their genetic code and taught cultural values. By contrast, the male incurs almost no physiological cost in distributing his seed, so he can comfortably live a life of promiscuity gambling on the continued reproductive success of at least a large enough minority of many descendants. In short: a female requires quality investment in her offspring, and a male can simply rely on quantity of offspring to likely get similar levels of success. This is why a female slut is blamed and a male slut is praised.

If males and females do not behave in accordance with these optimal mating strategies, less of their genetics and teachings will get passed on than those who behave more in accordance with these optimal mating strategies, and those who deviate will die out over time - making it a natural necessity that the “three abuses” will prevail, regardless of how you might feel about this fact. In this way there is an expected double standard.

From what I gather, you term the “Three Abuses” as 1) Sexual Jealousy, 2) Proclivity to Marry and 3) Approach Escalation:

1. A female does better to forgo sexual jealousy and forgive a cheating male who has reproduced with them, if only to maintain his investment in her offspring with this male, and not in his offspring with another female. As you say, if a female does this, he will be less likely to leave her. This is why a female will react more negatively to male emotional affairs with other females than simple physical affairs that mean nothing to him.
   By contrast, a male who forgoes sexual jealousy and forgives a cheating female is not showing a sufficient dedication to keeping her to himself over all other females and away from all male competition, and thereby not communicating sufficient likelihood to stick with her and maximally invest in their offspring that have cost her far more than him. Additionally, a male that does not act with sexual jealousy and hostility is not communicating the ability to win encounters with other males in general, and the willingness and ability to gain maximum resources to benefit their offspring over competing offspring.
   Again, it’s not necessarily an overt or conscious instinct, it is just the instinct that get passed down the most by humans that are successful at reproducing. It’s an inevitable emergence, regardless of morals and how things could be “better” if they were done otherwise. Nature selects according to pragmatic success, not morality.

2. Likewise, proclivity to marry communicates a specific dedication to one female over others, like a costly (and therefore honest) promise to forego reproducing with other females in favour of maximally investing in the offspring of just one special female. This is somewhat against the interests of males adopting the promiscuity strategy either consciously or unconsciously (which only works best at younger ages), but it also benefits a man who has chosen to invest in his offspring by serving to ward off other men and claiming exclusive ownership of his chosen female, which serves as a kind of guarantee that her offspring that the male is investing in is most likely his own rather than secretly the offspring of another competing male. This will be why single mothers are more “easy”, because if they can’t have the investment of the biological father, they need to incentivise the investment of another male by communicating a willingness to have less demanding sexual relations and to imply the potential to mother the new male’s offspring alongside offspring that is not theirs in a compromise.

3. The sexual signaling of approach escalation would be to communicate dominance. Dominant males need not care about adverse consequences because they are implying that they can easily provide investment in offspring even at the cost of others and their environment. Even the provokation of others is being communicated as not a concern due to the implied ability to deal with any hostility as trivial. It’s a guarantee of being able to provide so well and invest so easily that even intentionally inviting conflict and obstacle is no problem in the face of their strength and fitness. Costly signaling is an honest guarantee because the weak would not dare invite obstruction into their lives for fear they would not be able to deal with it - this is known as Zahavian Signaling.

In summary, the simple disparity in physiological cost of reproduction for each sex makes these “Three Abuses” inevitable, however detrimental their cost to social living and environment. Nature doesn’t care about that, it just passes on what works however you feel about it. The only way to really evolve beyond this without invoking force is for it to somehow be preferable for all to cooperate economically and share resources. This way, no competition over resources and social dominance will have an impact on the success of your offspring relative to the offspring of others - it will all be shared out equally. However, this is decadent as factors that indicate reproductive fitness will dilute and there will no longer be any incentive to choose the strong over the weak. Both women and men will resolve to procreating as much as possible, else genetics that don’t result in this will be phased out by genetics that do. We’d become more like Bonobos.

Bring it. Use your powers. She does as she pleases.

I challenge you to use all the great power you have at your disposal. All your bragging. All your bravado about how you challenge gods. Bring it. Quit your distractions, Ecmandu.

Let’s see the worn leather. Let’s see that 400 billion year old try.

You’ve got just one thing to prove here. I’ll quote you your words. Prove you are sane.

Find just one where I claimed to be a saint. I’ll dance with you on any plane you choose to any song you choose.

Start walking your talk, or risk it is just babble.

Show me your focus. Walk it. Create a time portal and do it yesterday. You say you have the power. You claim you’ve been to hell and back.

Bring it.

That is quite a story. You left out a few details. You leveled these arguments to ‘whom’, and ‘who’ found ‘them’ guilty?
Is hell a synonym for a mental institution?

I wonder how far philosophy encourages insanity. Far out thoughts are one thing. Efforts to form a coherent philosophy, another. By what measure? Confronting the insane with their insanity, is not likely an appropriate healing path. Bold magic marker or a fine lined pen.

Silhouette, much of your post strikes me as an evolutionary just-so story, and one that ostensibly explains only a caricature of human sexual differences. Human mating patterns haven’t always and everywhere resembled those most prominent in the modern west, and alternative strategies can find stable equilibriums:

1. In some cultures, women have been expected to be sexually active with multiple men through pregnancy, and this makes sense as a strategy for the woman, because paternal confusion means a greater likelihood of paternal investment from multiple men. It makes sense for the actual father if it means that his offspring have additional support. Bonobo sexual politics use similar promiscuity for group bonding, which benefits the individuals so long as it benefits the group.

2. Pair-bonding is a viable strategy for both partners. Humans are predominantly a k-species, bearing few offspring at high expense, so paternal investment is rewarded by increasing the success of the fewer offspring. The same strategy is used in other pair-bonding species. But pair bonding isn’t the only form of human sexual bonding. Harems are common in many cultures, and some cultures are effectively communal in their parenting.

3. In many human cultures, women are more highly ornamented than men, but it isn’t by any means universal. In western culture, women’s sexual signaling is more flamboyant. In the middle east, women don’t sexually signal at all.

Human sexual politics are heavily influenced by culture and other ‘nurture’, and they vary significantly over space and time. Moreover, the connection between sex and behavior/preference within a cultural context is often weaker than your description makes it seem. Human preferences form overlapping distributions, so that while there are some overall trends, it is not very predictive of the preference of a particular man or woman (controlling for e.g. culture, wealth, health, etc.).

Evolutionary game theory is way more complicated than you and Ecmandu are making it seem.

To be fair, confronting the sane with their faults is also not usually an effective way of getting them to acknowledge and correct their faults.

Carleas,

You are by far the most congenial poster on ILP.

I don’t want to offend your long well thought out post, but I fear I must …

We are a sex dimorphic species.

There are laws that objectively get triggered for sex dimorphic species. They are immutable.

Sexual signaling from men in a sex dimorphic species is a sex crime.

It’s also the only thing that works.

This causes obvious problems in the psychologies of humans. Problems that are better done away with.

I understand all the investment arguments.

What my motto here is, is “better communication for better outcomes”

We’re not doing that, I’m trying.

As far as mowk is concerned …

Monk is taunting me to be evil.

I’m not taking the bait to prove myself … thankfully there are posters here who actually understand that.

There are sexually dimorphic species with very different reproductive strategies, e.g. sometimes the males are larger, sometimes the females are larger; sometimes the males fight each other, sometimes the males fight the females; sometimes the males are parasitic, sometimes they’re the primary provider, sometimes they take turns.

In humans, sexual dimorphism is relatively minor. As I mentioned, on most dimensions, the distributions between men and women overlap. And across cultures, you find many different strategies and equilibriums for dealing with what consistent differences there are. Human evolutionary strategy seems to vary in ways not observed in other species, so it’s not clear how applicable observations from other species are, but even if they were, strategies comparable to many other species can be seen in different humans groups and employed by different human individuals.

What are you assuming is the unit of selection? I’d argue that human group selection is significantly greater than in other species, and that human individual specialization is a part of that, so that diverse strategies work for individuals in human groups.

I don’t think that’s true. You are making claims based on a … unique set of metaphysical premises. To the extent that your argument depends on those premises, it is as unsupported as they are.

I don’t think you will be surprised to learn that your experiences are quite far from those of almost all other people. While that isn’t decisive, it does seem to put the burden on you to support a version of the world that you alone experience over the version of the world on which many others largely agree.

Carleas,

I’ve pointed out that in the human species that they have sex dimorphism, they have weapons and combat training dimorphism and they have rape dimorphism (much easier for a man to rape a woman than a woman a man).

What this means is that ALL women show a relative discomfort from men for sexual signaling than men do from women. It’s a species fact.

If the only thing that works is to send discomfort to eventually become comfort, you have a no means yes relationship RELATIVE to the other sex.

But this is observably false. Some men are particularly meek and timid, some women are bold and fearless. The distributions overlap. You’re taking something that’s true of the center of a distribution, and treating it as though it applies to every individual in the distribution.

There’s actually a reason for this!

Men who are on the ‘timid’ end are terrified of showing any minutiae of sexual attraction that they feel, for fear of violating the approach escalation law…

Highly sensitive males.

The law still stands.

Note that you’re acknowledging that observation contradicts your initial hypothesis, and you’re trying to add an epicycle to explain why. Also note that you’re again pointing to something (sex drive) that observably varies greatly between individual men: we can observe that some men have no sex drive, and some men’s sex drive doesn’t point towards women.

I’m sure you can keep adding epicycles, but I think they will all make the same mistake of treating every member of a diverse set as though they have the average attributes of the set.

The set in question is approach escalation …

Even the meek who women throw themselves at are displaying a modicum of sexual signaling …

Not because of their consciences , but because of their naivety, their ignorance.

Now move a person in like myself and it changes the game radically.

But don’t you see how this is an obvious caricature? You’re summoning some archetype from a teen movie and treating it like it plays a significant role in sex relations in the whole human species.

Human sexual politics are lots and lots and lots of different things. They’re friendly and rivalrous and hateful and competitive and spiteful and mean and tender and beautiful and ugly and transactional and communal and willing and unwilling and painful and happy and basically any adjective you come up with you can find an example of a human sexual relationship that embodies it. It isn’t simple and one dimensional the way you’re describing it. Neither are the participants.

You’ve reduced all of it to two center-the-bell-curve myths and extrapolated from there, but that interaction describes almost none of the interactions you’re trying to describe. Effectively all men are more X or less X than the average man, effectively all women are more X or less X than the average woman. Effectively all couples, all courtships, deviate from the average-man-and-average-woman coupling and courtship you’re theorizing about.

It’s over fo ya, E. you got the goddamn site administrator on your ass now.

kick his ass, sea bass!

Let’s take a popular example of who we’d all assume is a pretty meek celebrity…

James Taylor …

You see, the problem is, he uses ornamentation (music) and he married.

I can’t tell you how many times my heart has been shattered by giving up behaviors that brought me joy, but which were ornamentations (sexual signaling), so that I could theoretically have a consensual relationship with a woman.

You have conjured in your mind that males who aren’t abusive can be with women sexually.

You’re wrong.

This one dimension is absolute.

You’ve violated it, so you’re not really in a position to talk about yourself.

I’ve read all the same stuff as you carleas, all the different cultures etc…

You can always find male sexual signaling that is not reciprocal.

This is not a variable sociologists tend to look deeply at. I do.

If I can start raising those antennas, sociologists will realize that this is a law in our species, thus far.

Also, carleas,

Like I’ve said several times, it’s not the humans I’m furious with. It’s the deities.

Fuck! I wear a jacket with a brand name because mother bought it for me. Most homeless people don’t even have a choice as well, they wear what keeps them warm and dry.

I’m not fucking perfect. But I know a lot of deities who think that they are, and I’m more perfect than them.

I see the world as it is. Zero sum. I see that, not as a gift, but as something to grieve …

That makes me more perfect. I’m going to concentrate that ‘perfection’ to the best of my ability to end the zero sum nature of existence.

Ultimately, I have to live with myself, that’s the one person I can’t get away from.

I couldn’t live with myself if I were like most people on earth… it would haunt me mercilessly.

I’ve had enough of that in my life.

I take human sexuality dead seriously. I don’t play games with it, I have no pretenses swirling in my head about it. I know what I know and I obey to the best of my ability (which is pretty good ability).