Do you even understand the definition of that word??
Yes. It means that I hate you unless you sell your soul to me no matter what I say or do
Do you?
Webster dictionary:
Definition of hypergamy
: marriage into an equal or higher caste or social group
Now how do you get the specific quote that you pointed out into that definition? I do hope you don’t hurt yourself by twisting too much.
Hmm… I’ll admit I was wrong.
Gamy is obviously marriage and hyper is “pinnacle of intensity”
I simply assumed when reading the word that it meant “super-monogamous inclinations and demands”
I actually think the dictionary definition doesn’t explain the root at all. You can see how it’s confusing, because in my definition, though different than the dictionary, actually also fits contextually how people use it. The mistake is easy to make I suppose.
Ain’t English fun? I appreciate what you said. Humans are more and more partnering for love. Yes there are still too many that bond for other reasons. Religion, politics, status and of course the most corrupt, sexual lust.
Well… let’s not go too far with that!
You need lust to be compelled towards sex. Asexuals can have plenty of love, but because they were born with zero lust, have no sex whatsoever.
Asexuals have a very high suicide rate because of implicit shaming.
Let me clarify. I am not saying zero lust. Just that lust corrupts. Think about all the horny cheaters. Too much lust, too much ego about lust, or just addicted to orgasms. Sexuality is necessary but, it can be highly corrupted and cause corruption.
“Cheaters” is a sexual concept about people as sexual property. Remember how I thought hypergamy was defined? “Super-monogamous inclinations and demands”
But, you do not apply breeding to it nor do you apply inate pack/herd instincts. Breeding is an instinct involved with pack/herd. As humans evolved there became a necessity to change. Consider the small groups of humans at the beginning. Would incest have been a true issue or understood?
Let’s think about what men and women want with respect to breeding.
Men want to know the offspring is theirs or not theirs.
Women don’t want to be emotionally and financially abandoned.
That’s the stereotype.
How do they really act?!
Well… men and women sleep with others. Women do it for more emotional and/or financial support.
Men do it for more offspring.
But that’s just reproduction.
People mostly have sex just because they are horny.
White people aren’t even replacing their population, and have no interest in such.
But! They want to “get off”, they want to fuck.
Mostly, people just want to fuck.
To lay down some draconian law that people shouldn’t have sexual variety in their lives sickens me personally. By the time you are an adult, it should be very simple for you to make this connection (both male and female) with others without reproducing (even if you’re in a relationship)
So really, what’s the reason of tightening the screws (pun intended) on another persons sexuality?
Women just want to fuck too. I mean a rock star a movie star or a sports star will typically sleep with over 10,000 women in a lifetime, with maybe 5 offspring. The women aren’t gold diggers, they just want the fuck. Men tend to not see women as just wanting the fuck, but mostly, that’s exactly what they want. Not the offspring or blackmail child support.
Female is the sex - specialized reproductive role - which acts as an agency of nature, filtering out unfit genes and memes.
This is why they become a target for male resentment when the absence of Paternalism returns females to their original natural role.
Males filtered out of the gene pool feel unjustifiably wronged.
Women do not understand how their judgment words - its intuitive - and they can be trained to filter out using memetic criteria, despite their genetic inclinations, producing, ni them a sense of confusion - loss of identity.
Reproduction depends on pretences. Males pretending to be more than what they are, and females pretending to do so, as well, so as to attract more males, more suitors.
Sex is a game of pretences, and females have evolved the ability to detect them.
Sex is aggressive, since it involves a penetration which requires the inhibition of the females fight/flight mechanism.
Similarly, for sperm to survive until they reach the ovum, and for the embryo to not be rejected as a alien element, the female has evolved self-deceiving chemical mechanisms to trick her own autoimmune systems.
This is mirrored in how her mind is placated and calmed, to permit the approach and intrusive penetration of an other organism - the male. She self-deceives, internally and externally, so as to permit the reproductive process to proceed successfully.
Lust is a form of chemical intoxication; love is a sophistication of it permitting tolerance and bonding.
A biochemical mechanism to deal with already evolved survival mechanisms.
Where and how did you two gentlemen gain your “knowledge” of women?
On da streets, baby. In the hood.
But seriously.
all knowledge is gained in three ways.
1-First hand experiences.
2-Second hand experiences; watching others interact, from start to finish, seeing intentions, expectations and then consequences, results.
3-Third Hand experiences; rumours, gossip, knowledge shared from person to person.
Human behaviour can also be juxtaposed to animal behaviour, to gain insight into the primal, the instinctive; what underlies the pretences of civility and cultivation.
Where, and how, do you get yours?
Do you interview the subjects and take their word on it?
I ask, if a dog can know itself more than a human can know it.
How many truly know themselves, or what your true motives are, beneath the ones you’ve convinced yourself about?
Do you?
I get mine similar but I look at the sources. The source must be considered the most important. I also must look at my opinion of the source so that there is no underlying bigotry so prejudice does not taint or twist data. The ultimate answer must come from all or as many types of personalities as possible.
And how do you define “bigotry”?
Whatever disagrees with the popular zeitgeist?
Bigotry is prejudice against something it is not about just one view or attitude that dominates.
I am bigoted against okra, cauliflower, hate of background and ancestry and self made deliberate ignorance.
What opinion is not bigoted? When does a perceived pattern cease to be prejudiced?
this is a statement of your official epistemology? Well it’s unacceptable and needs some considerable revision. Like I can’t even know if I have analytical apriori necessary knowledge or synthetic a posteriori contingent knowledge if I rely on you, man.
For this reason I shall present to you the following video, that in its stead might you rise from your ashes like a phoenix, and see the world in its true epistemological glory.
So many are not. Look at the word as part of a scale of emotions or taste. You can be prejudiced against something or someone but not hate, loathe or the extreme, want to kill.