posted March 30, 2014 09:36 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by FireMoon:
But I really don't believe it's nature that encourages male dominance.

---

posted March 30, 2014 10:17 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rajji:
The most Primal instinct in animals is neither to reproduce nor to survive but to dominate! Many male species of the animal kingdom fight for their territory before they even consider mating

---

Ummm what? There would be nothing to fight for if mating and surviving wasn't a priority in the first place.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rajji:
Physical strength such as height, bone mass, heavy upper body, Muscle structure also adds up to an even bigger advantage
that males would have over females in competing for dominance.

---

And yes, men are physically larger, stronger, etc. on average but my point was that of course there are inherent biological differences, but they evolved that way for a reason, and it wasn't solely to dominate females... We're far from neanderthals these days but in hunter and gatherer times although men and women played different roles it was ironically a much more egalitarian structure of society because there wasn't a monetary value placed on "hunting skills" vs. childcare, etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rajji:
Female species even in nature are raped, female orangutans for example tend to fight hard against a weaker male, but they struggle much less when it is a stronger alpha male!Is is because of survival/submissive tendencies.
Another sign of male dominance to be noted is the very act of sexual intercourse in nature, where the male is on top and in control!

---

posted March 30, 2014 01:50 PM            

quote:

---

Female species even in nature are raped, female orangutans for example tend to fight hard against a weaker male, but they struggle much less when it is a stronger alpha male!Is is because of survival/submissive tendencies.

---

Well that's because the Female Orangutan doesn't have the tools necessary to defend herself. I wonder how submissive does that female Orangutan has to be if Orangutans for instance had invented Firearms? Bet ya that Male Orangutan will wish he didn't tried raping that female Orangutan when she pops three .45 ACPs up his worthless Ass ?

Evolution goes beyond physical development.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rajji:
Xodian - if the good is such because God says it is, then morality is arbitrary.which is my case.
If the good is absolute, then we don’t need the middle Man to figure out what is good and what is not.This is where you are coming from.
Simply put Natural law has two variations.
For the theists,like me, there is a higher power that created all of nature and created the laws as well and so obedience to those laws is the morally correct thing to do.

---

You will be surprised to know that I am not an Atheist but that's irreverent in this conversation. I'll be quite blunt with this:

With "theists" like yourself, priority over ACTUAL facts, figures, and human rights take second seat to dogmatic beliefs that have no relevance in this day and age anymore; But rather to justify a set of beliefs that vividly discriminate based on race, gender, and sexual orientation. As such, we will NEVER see eye to eye as I see NO Justification in your positions which have ABSOLUTELY no factual bearing on the world we live in today.

Not to mention the fact that I have no respect for anyone who tries to define the dynamics of relationship over "God given rights" of dominance; Especially if that sentiment relates to women.

posted March 30, 2014 05:19 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by FireMoon:
I'm not sure how males competing for the "best prize" necessarily shows male dominance? I mean I could argue that's similar to how females "compete" for the men who are most successful/financially secure, while women aren't encouraged as extensively to provide that stability for themselves and aren't respected in the same way if they do achieve that level of success.

And technically women do tend to live longer than men (not by 30 years) but still not sure how that's relevant either.

---

That answer - was aimed at your previous response (which i quoted) - where you were questioning the male dominance and its part in the "law of nature". In nature, in the animal kingdom - the males that prove their dominance - earn "the wining prize" - as in - the right to procreate with that specific female of the group. Depending on the specie in question, the dominance can imply all kinds of pre-mating habits through winch they can prove their state of health and potency as suitable mating partners or strong members of the group. That is "the law of nature" - the law of evolution, where the strongest earned the right to pass their genes while the weak - get left behind. In the animal kingdom - you don't see many females of a their species trying to prove their dominance - while aiming to mate with a male of their group (that's quite unusual/unnatural). No, the males have follow a ritual specific to the specie in question - through which they can prove themselves worthy - of being their mate. That's an instinctual drive - that's specific to the males of a specie. On the other hand - there are some... unusual examples - where the males of a specie can't maintain a level of dominance over the females - since the females are bigger or equal in strength (sometimes - they even have a hidden agenda in their mind - as it's the case with certain insect species that indulge cannibalism). For example the "Black Widow" or the "Praying Mantis" - whom are not only capable of dominance but even postmating cannibalism (and yes, i know... this example could also be used as an analogy - for certain females of our species ^^). This doesn't happen all the time - though. In the case of the male spider - there is a preventive way which can lower the chance of being eaten - as in: checking for her virginity. :) If she was pregnant - and he tries to mate with her, the chances for the little spider to be eaten - are quite high. :) There are all kind of examples - even species that involve colonies - where the Queen is obviously dominant.

... and for start, here's a noticeable difference between humans and others species, as in: "The influence of Neptune (drugs, alcohol... and everything related to that). We don't see many animals - getting drunk and procreating with "whomever" gets them horny at a party - while being drunk. Spring brake? I don't know what's that like - i'm from Europe. :)

Does the law of nature apply to humans?
To a big extent - it does. In our own way (yet, quite different from one pole to another) we feel inclined to follow somehow similar rules of mating - at least instinctively, tough... the human race is "the odd one out" from this point of view. For one thing - we are in the top of the evolutionary chain (the most evolved of all the species from this planet) - but also the sum of all species (our evolution doesn't start with primates). And then - there's matter of cultural differences and gender roles. Throughout the human history and up to this point - we shared a lot of similarities with certain species (or more like borrowed) - that became apparent in human cultures all over the world. Fashion for example, our neanderthal ancestors - were to busy with the hunter gather game - to bother with that (their mating habits - were supposedly similar to those of the apes). While in the animal kingdom - for some species - fashion was already part of their mating ritual (as it's the case with the Peacock). We tried even the way of insect colonies - as was the case with monarchy and communism (just some example). There's a lot of influence from nature (the law of things) - which quite apparent in our evolution. And - since i mentioned the human history, there were cultures where females has dominant roles - as was the case with Egypt and Cleopatra, the amazon culture, the famous serial killer Countess Elizabeth Bathory, the unusual case of Jeanne d'Arc and all kind of female pirates like Anne Bonny... and so on. Most cases falls under social/gender roles and privileged circumstances. And that's something - that we don't see in the animal kingdom (males playing the roles of females and viscera). Among animals - their sexuality goes hand in hand with their gender roles, but we humans - through our individuality - we can show defining traits of masculinity and femininity - which don't reflect our sex. Thus "sociology" was born - as way to explain the difference between sex and gender, between cultures and gender roles. And don't take this the wrong way - but, if you have an interest in this type of discussions - I'd recommend you start with the basic of sociology. You have your opinions - i get that, but you're trying to express ideas related to sociology - while denoting poor knowledge of its contents (sex and gender - are not the same thing / marriage - was not invented by the church - not even partially... it was "adapted by certain religions" - but was already around in all kind of societies and cultures - long before the first Church was put together... just some examples).

quote:

---

"Anyway to answer your question, if (and that's a huge if lol) I ever choose to procreate, I would want to have my own **** together and know I'm on a position where if god forbid anything happened or went south in the relationship I could take care of myself as well as my children without the support of a partner. Counter question for you: how exactly do you define a "masculine figure" in a relationship?"

---

Ouch. There are plenty of cases where women - end-up in a position where they were forced to raise a child alone... without a masculine figure - without a father, and... Well, in a healthy relationships - that involves a child (a family), a masculine figure is necessary - for the child to grow with a healthy mentality - in terms of genders (he'd need a role model - for each of the two genders), where the mother is the feminine figure (denoting feminine traits) and the father - the masculine (denoting masculine traits). If the women is more masculine - she might attract the opposite (a male that's more feminine) - which influences the child in choosing similar examples as a partner. If it's a boy - he'll be more interested girls who are more masculine like its mother (if it's a girl - viceversa). If the father is absent - and the mother raises the child alone - a girl for example, for one thing - she could develop a father complex - where she'd be interested in older men - who seem to compensate for that emptiness from her childhood (the lack of a father - a masculine figure), but even more than that - she'd be confused in terms of social roles and her behavior in society - while looking at other girls who had a father figure (she'd have a hard time following their example - when it comes to boys). Thus - she'd deal with a dysfunctional evolution from this point of view - at least till she gets mature enough to overcome her complex (if she'd be whiling to work on that - inward) and balance her lifestyle - while rediscovering masculinity and femininity. If we're to talk about a boy who grows without a father - that boy would a hard time to understand the masculine role in terms of relationship (maybe - even a mommy's boy - if their care for each-other). Same as with the girl - he'd be confused about his early evolution - in comparison to other boys who seem to know their way around other girls - as if it's a natural thing ("which it is" - a healthy family - with appropriate role models - leads to healthy mentality of their children - even if they're gay). So, same as the girl - he'd have to work on himself and rediscover femininity and masculinity - or else he'd exude a dysfunctional perspective in terms of relationship - till he manages to change from this point of view.

------------------

[☼ ► ♊ ... ☾ ► ♈ ... Ⓐsc. ► ♋]

posted March 30, 2014 07:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rajji:

How can liberals support funding for AIDS treatment,while promoting the spread of AIDS by allowing sexual behavior
that leads to it? In defending gay rights, liberals sanction homosexual sex; they sanction teenage sex by advocating the distribution of condoms in schools; How can liberals say they want to stop the spread of AIDS while they sanction practices that lead to it?And why are crime rates rathe high in liberal cities than in conservative ones?

---

Stop jumping everywhere to cloud the issue.

Condoms aren't distributed at the vast majority of schools, and where they are they're available in the nurses office when specifically asked for. Christians bearing false witness love to say otherwise (and those who are gullible enough to repeat those false witnesses). Yet even those exceptions where condoms are available for the asking there are less STDs, teen pregnancy, etc. Asking why this is so is like asking why gun safety courses & equipment lead to fewer gun accidents or why driver safety courses contribute to fewer accidents. I don't think it was a fluke that Sarah Palin's daughter was the one to get pregnant as a teen rather than the daughters of one of the more liberal politicians. It makes perfect sense to me.

There's also the element of trust by kids who learn what adults like you teach isn't true and thus reject the real dangers along with the false ones. And more, but I'm not up to explaining what it's like to be a kid to you.

AIDS is highest in Africa where religion bans condoms and homosexuality, btw. And it's not just gay men who get it. I've even heard of a married woman who only had sex with her husband yet got it from her husband as he liked to patronize female prostitutes while on the road in a truck with very little sleep.

And as for divorce, I already gave a link to it, here it is again exploring why conservative states have more divorce:
http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/impact-of-conservative-protestantism-on -regional-divorce-rates/

I'll add that I've also read that some women have married too early to get at sex guilt free and under the false impression their own desires would then evaporate to be replaced by that of her husband but it didn't work so that the marriage was ultimately doomed.

posted March 30, 2014 10:19 PM            

So as you were saying, yes some Americans party like barbarians and make irresponsible decisions, but that's what condoms are for . Lol I'm partially kidding, but idk I mean I'm 23 and have never been pregnant because I'm extremely careful about that... Having kids is not something I take lightly at all, I would never bring an innocent life into the world only to raise it in a dysfunctional environment. (which is another reason it's irritating to hear that women who have pre-marital sex are automatically w**** who will end up having 5 baby daddies by the time they're 30)

As for the basics of sociology, when I said marriage is a concept partially invented by the church, what I should have said is the monogamous, no sex before marriage definition of marriage that rajji is referring to was greatly influenced by the Christian church, when in reality this can't be proved as "natural" since throughout human history there have been many variations of this idea of "holy matrimony".

http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/1084

In essence I'm agreeing with much of what you're saying, but again tend to blurt out all my ideas at once when frustrated.

posted March 30, 2014 10:31 PM            

quote:

---

Why are divorce rates higher in religiously conservative “red” states and lower in less religiously conservative “blue” states? After all, most conservatives frown upon divorce, and religious commitment is believed to strengthen marriage, not erode it. Even so, religiously conservative states Alabama and Arkansas have the second and third highest divorce rates in the U.S., at 13 per 1000 people per year while New Jersey and Massachusetts, more liberal states, are two of the lowest at 6 and 7 per 1000 people per year.

---

"It turns out that what was being compared was the number of divorces per 1000 people in each state rather than the number of divorces per 1000 married couples:
Rates throughout this report count the marital events reported in the past 12 months per 1,000 men or women in the population 15 and older. That wouldn’t be significant if roughly the same number of people got married in each US state. But that’s not the case. There is a much lower rate of marriage in the liberal north-east of the US.So you might expect states with a higher rate of marriage to also have a

higher rate of divorce. "
More here:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/09/do-liberal-sta tes-really-have-lower-divorce-rates/

quote:

---

Evangelicals and divorce. For a new study appearing later this month in the American Journal of Sociology, Demographers Jennifer Glass at the University of Texas and Philip Levchak at the University of Iowa looked at the entire map of the United States, going county by county, to examine where divorces occurred in 2000 and what the characteristics of those counties were. Their work confirms that one of the strongest factors predicting divorce rates (per 1000 married couples) is the concentration of conservative or evangelical Protestants in that county.

---

It is higher in conservative families but that is because most liberal families the man and woman is not married, especially among blacks.If you don't have a marriage rate you are not going to get a divorce rate and when the rate of marriage is higher in one region you will see a higher rate of divorce. So you see, it is only because liberal couples usually don't bother to get married at all.

quote:

---

And you'll find a lot more crime (plus teen pregnancy, etc) in Atlanta, Miami, or Houston than you would San Francisco. It's irrelevant to what you brought up in this thread in any case, and frankly just shows your religious faith in a bad light that you say the things you do (and plenty of Christians would like you to stop giving their religion a bad name).There's also the element of trust by kids who learn what adults like you teach isn't true and thus reject the real dangers along with the false ones. And more, but I'm not up to explaining what it's like to be a kid to you.

---

With Liberal families, things like divorce,teen pregnancy,family values is a passe and is far normal if not encouraged by them.On the other hand conservatives have a strong moral backing, and although they do have ups and downs in life,they are more willing to work it out than giving up.And that would mean much lesser rates of dysfunctional families...which is very much in line with the topic.Children during their formative years tend to trust others outside the family.So you see how easy it is for them to get lured into the wrong
side of the fence.Whether I teach/rebuke/discipline my child as a responsible parent is what matters more than what is true or not anyway at that tender age.

quote:

---

AIDS is highest in Africa where religion bans condoms and homosexuality, btw. And it's not just gay men who get it. I've even heard of a married woman who only had sex with her husband yet got it from her husband as he liked to patronize female prostitutes while on the road in a truck with very little sleep.

---

posted March 30, 2014 10:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rajji:
With Liberal families, things like divorce,teen pregnancy,family values is a passe and is far normal if not encouraged by them

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rajji:
most liberal families the man and woman is not married, especially among blacks

---

Generally speaking, blacks are not liberal, at least not the ones you're referring to (the ones who are liberal are much less likely to engage in these things). While there is a strong tendency to vote Democrat (though the ones you refer to probably don't--or can't--vote at all) that is for very specific reasons, and not all Democrats (who are actually right wing moderates when compared to most of the Western world) are liberal. Even the National Organization of Marriage (double speak as they're actually OPPOSED to marriage) attempted to exploit this with Romney helping. And it makes sense given that most blacks tend to be raised in conservative (though not Republican) Christian households, the primary reason so many of them voted against Prop 8 in California (those on TV and also everyone who knows people there said they did so for Christian reasons).

Though your entire comment about "most liberal families" was ignorant enough all by itself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rajji:
Religion or Science has nothing to do with ever increasing rates of STDs, teen pregnancy, divorce and other problems that stalk the so called modern society

---

posted March 31, 2014 12:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:

---