Lindaland
  Sweet Peas In The Rain
  Dysfunctional Relationships vs. Healthy Relationships (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Dysfunctional Relationships vs. Healthy Relationships
rajji
Knowflake

Posts: 1325
From:
Registered: Jan 2011

posted March 28, 2014 12:30 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for rajji     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
How would you describe your relationship? If you knew that there were very clear distinctions that separate a dysfunctional relationship from a healthy one, would that make a difference to you?

IP: Logged

rajji
Knowflake

Posts: 1325
From:
Registered: Jan 2011

posted March 28, 2014 12:54 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for rajji     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Originally posted by rajji:
A man Leads,
A woman follows.
“A woman simply is, but a man must become. Masculinity is risky and elusive. It is achieved by a revolt from woman, and is confirmed only by other men. Manhood coerced into sensitivity is no manhood at all.” –Camille Paglia
“Stand true to your calling to be a man. Real women will always be relieved and grateful when men are willing to be men.” –Elisabeth Elliott

Pixie Jane answers

quote:
Not really. Plenty of dysfunctional families have the type of men and women you describe while plenty of healthy families do not. And many cultures actually divide spheres of influence so a man leads outside the home but a woman rules within it (in some cases she even controls the money the man makes, though that comes with heavy obligations that are socially enforced), and that actually makes a lot of sense to me though I see no reason to make it an iron-clad rule.

Even the Vikings had more respect for women than the one that became dominant, and they were known to serve admirably as warriors in times of desperation. From what I've read I wouldn't be surprised if one of the reasons (though not most compelling) many Scandinavians traveled on ship (without women) was to get out of the household where their wives sometimes put them in their place (and while Vikings did sometimes bring slaves back the wife, first one anyway, was typically in charge of them once they were taken into the home). And once when the men left to fight others some Vikings of another land decided to raid, rape, and pillage the women and children left behind (as they had to take care of the home, a very important duty for their survival) which did not end well for them: http://www.badassoftheweek.com/blenda.html

She's celebrated today, and plenty who revere the Scandinavian gods also celebrate Queen Sigrid who refused to bow before any man she considered beneath her, even arranged the death of the man who slapped her when she refused to convert to Christianity and marry him. It's rather funny today how many think it was more like the male supremacy of Gor.


Sure, there are differences between men and women, biology demands at least a few (though as we gain more control of our bodies they become less relevant) but they're not as extreme as you'd define them.


Though I'd be curious what you thought about the male fascination with dominatrixes, men pay A LOT for their services, ironically even more than they'll pay prostitutes despite that there's often no sex involved. It's been noted that the men who seem to desire dominatrixes the most are often powerful men who dominate other men (and possibly women) themselves, though I personally don't know if that's simply because such men would more likely have the money to afford their services. (Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan, believed women became dominatrixes because there were no real men anymore and thus evoked "the male within" against feminine men. Not that I subscribe to that idea, though I thought it might be of interest to you. He also believed that women were more powerful than men, but a woman's greatest power is that men did not know how easily she could control him especially when he was ignorant of her wiles and tricks to do so.)


IP: Logged

rajji
Knowflake

Posts: 1325
From:
Registered: Jan 2011

posted March 28, 2014 12:56 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for rajji     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Padre35:
In the advocatius diaboli tradition

Assume all of that is how it is in the world

Meanwhile, the snowflake in question has been with dozens of men, on the outside of course all is prim and proper and fun!

Yes!

Meanwhile, you would never know about their past (and future consequences from it, after all, most divorces are initiated by women b/c of not happy) and the whole "be a man" schtick is ones world view.

Uhm yeah, good luck with that..sounds cynical, perhaps it is, my pov is more keep ones eyes open to reality and implication.


IP: Logged

Padre35
Knowflake

Posts: 3289
From: Asheville, NC, US
Registered: Jul 2012

posted March 28, 2014 12:57 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Padre35     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Quite simply, women hold the keys to emotions, men hold the keys to commitment.

Everything else is negotiations

IP: Logged

rajji
Knowflake

Posts: 1325
From:
Registered: Jan 2011

posted March 28, 2014 01:05 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for rajji     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Intrinsically men and women are made different.They are not equal forces but complementary forces.When these forces operate against nature, A family becomes dysfunctional!
A man begets, A woman bears.
A man Leads, A woman follows.
“A woman simply is, but a man must become. Masculinity is risky and elusive. It is achieved by a revolt from woman, and is confirmed only by other men. Manhood coerced into sensitivity is no manhood at all.” –Camille Paglia
“Stand true to your calling to be a man. Real women will always be relieved and grateful when men are willing to be men.” –Elisabeth Elliott

I define A Healthy Relationship as one, that abides by the Natural Laws of Nature.

Natural Law

There are laws of nature, which animals and inanimate objects are forced to obey, and we should regard them as supreme and the basis for our laws. Everything has a proper function in nature's order, and the proper (right) way for people to live is according to that order. Example: male dominance is good because we find it everywhere in nature.

Sometimes "natural law" is a form of divine command theory. The universe is created by a supreme being, and we should obey its will. But because its will is not transparent (we can't just read commands out of the Bible), we have to study nature and its laws to determine how we should live.

Problems:

It confuses two meanings of "law", only one of which is moral. One kind of law is intended to govern the behavior of beings who can choose between right and wrong (these are the laws we give ourselves). The other kind of law is simply an observed regularity in the physical world: the law of gravity, or the rate of acceleration of falling objects. Just because we use the same word for both doesn't mean that there's any moral significance in the latter kind of law ("laws of nature").

There are all kinds of common animal behaviors that we don't consider appropriate for humans, like marking territory with urine.

There are inconsistent patterns of behavior among animals, but the theory gives us no way to tell whom to emulate: should we be like sheep, or like wolves? Does nature tell us to live in a strict hierarchy, like bees, or in an egalitarian collective, like prairie dogs? Should we cooperate, like ants, or compete, like tigers?

IP: Logged

FireMoon
Knowflake

Posts: 1453
From: Minnesota
Registered: Mar 2012

posted March 28, 2014 01:44 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for FireMoon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by rajji:
I define A Healthy Relationship as one, that abides by the Natural Laws of Nature.

Natural Law

There are laws of nature, which animals and inanimate objects are forced to obey, and we should regard them as supreme and the basis for our laws. Everything has a proper function in nature's order, and the proper (right) way for people to live is according to that order. Example: male dominance is good because we find it everywhere in nature.

Sometimes "natural law" is a form of divine command theory. The universe is created by a supreme being, and we should obey its will. But because its will is not transparent (we can't just read commands out of the Bible), we have to study nature and its laws to determine how we should live.

Problems:

It confuses two meanings of "law", only one of which is moral. One kind of law is intended to govern the behavior of beings who can choose between right and wrong (these are the laws we give ourselves). The other kind of law is simply an observed regularity in the physical world: the law of gravity, or the rate of acceleration of falling objects. Just because we use the same word for both doesn't mean that there's any moral significance in the latter kind of law ("laws of nature").

There are all kinds of common animal behaviors that we don't consider appropriate for humans, like marking territory with urine.

There are inconsistent patterns of behavior among animals, but the theory gives us no way to tell whom to emulate: should we be like sheep, or like wolves? Does nature tell us to live in a strict hierarchy, like bees, or in an egalitarian collective, like prairie dogs? Should we cooperate, like ants, or compete, like tigers?


And how do the laws of nature dictate that "men lead and women follow"? Or... "Women simply are, men must become"?

Before the development of agriculture humans lived in nomadic societies where yes men and women had very different responsibilities, but it was understood that all were equally necessary and important for survival... women's "roles" weren't devalued and commodified as they are today. Marriage is a concept partially invented by the church and that correlates with things like inheritance and private property, even Monarchy rule, etc... Without even getting into the ethics of that just curious how those seem like "natural" laws to you?

Edit sorry I thought this part was a quote too... But I'm still not seeing any specific examples of this found in nature? And that's a contradiction to begin with since Christianity teaches that nature is here to be dominated by us and used at our disposal since we are only here to serve God... So there's already a hierarchy, oh and God created us "in his image" and he is a man right?

Lol sorry I just find it a little ridiculous sometimes...

IP: Logged

Xodian
Knowflake

Posts: 777
From: Canada
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 28, 2014 02:12 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Xodian     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by rajji:
Natural Law:

There are laws of nature, which animals and inanimate objects are forced to obey, and we should regard them as supreme and the basis for our laws. Everything has a proper function in nature's order, and the proper (right) way for people to live is according to that order.


Yeah... No. Rather than taking a philosophical skew on things, you might wanna refresh on your highschool Biology once again . Everything in Nature ADAPTS to the circumstances of the environment and changes according to those circumstances. That is the cornerstone idea of Evolution. The Flora and Fauna of a corresponding habitat is at a state of Equilibrium with one another. Once that Equilibrium is thrown off by an external factor (Environmental changes, Loss of Food Source, etc.) the corresponding species of that particular habitat either adapt to the changes, migrate or die out.

THAT is Natural Law and it applies perfectly well to human relationships as well. There might have been a time where the classic "family" structure might have worked given the fact that the average human lifespan was less than 30 years. Fastforward now to this date where Science and Medicine has allowed us to surpass such limitations and usher in a more technological age. As such, the humans need to learn to adapt to these new changes. And that means equal recognition for the right of an INDIVIDUAL (not just men) to achieve personal growth through their own means, needs and self-actualization. That means going beyond the mundane model of the 50s God Fearing "Family Unit" *Blech.*


quote:
Example: male dominance is good because we find it everywhere in nature.

... With the exception of Bees, Orangutans, Lemurs, Killer Whales, Chimps, Elephants, Bison, Baboons, etc. etc. (I could just go on.) And even in circumstances where there might be an Alpha Male pack leader, like Lions, notice that the providers of the packs are usually females .


quote:
There are inconsistent patterns of behavior among animals, but the theory gives us no way to tell whom to emulate: should we be like sheep, or like wolves? Does nature tell us to live in a strict hierarchy, like bees, or in an egalitarian collective, like prairie dogs? Should we cooperate, like ants, or compete, like tigers?

What separates us from animals is our recognition and awareness of our consciousness (the Hallmark essence of a Sentient being.) As such, once we recognize the fact that individuals are more than just their basic instincts, we recognize their right to live their lives as they see fit; SO LONG AS their way of life doesn’t leads to any harmful misgivings of other individuals trying to live their lives. As such, assigning them “Naturalistic Roles” seems mundane as we now find ourselves trying to achieve a new Equilibrium within ourselves (i.e. How to best live as a conscious individual and yet still be in harmony with our basic instincts.)

Well the answer to that is simple; Let the individual decide their role based on their own conscious judgment. As such, there is no one “true way” of living. And that is something that all Bible Thumpers need to realize and REALIZE QUICKLY! Lest they get swept aside by the ever changing dynamics of Evolution .

IP: Logged

PixieJane
Moderator

Posts: 4058
From: CA
Registered: Oct 2010

posted March 28, 2014 03:10 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for PixieJane     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by rajji:
How would you describe your relationship

Different relationships had different rules.

If something was a law of nature then it couldn't be broken, at least not without technological help. While technology runs on the laws of nature so that technically even that doesn't break them I'll let that slide given that technology has so radically changed society and how our species live and not everyone can handle it. Our biology really wasn't set up for the world we have now, though I personally think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages (and that we'll eventually adapt, one way or another).

quote:
Originally posted by rajji:
If you knew that there were very clear distinctions that separate a dysfunctional relationship from a healthy one, would that make a difference to you?

Of course. That's not to say I expect absolute perfection and for friends and partners not to make mistakes but in no way would I tolerate a habit of blowing the rent money, living on credit, accepting injuries being inflicted upon me (or even just menaced), habitual betrayal, etc. I've ended or severely limited other relationships over that and I don't hold myself to lower standards than I hold others to, either.

But just to be clear you haven't made a convincing argument that you know the clear distinctions so I don't accept them as "very clear distinctions." Xodian gave enough reasons why so I'll refrain (though I could add more). And I'll add that we're not all identical cogs in a machine (which you should agree with if you believe in astrology) so that living arrangements that work for some people won't work for all and therefore some variety is inevitable, and I'd say healthy for society.

IP: Logged

PixieJane
Moderator

Posts: 4058
From: CA
Registered: Oct 2010

posted March 28, 2014 03:18 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for PixieJane     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Btw, are you going to share what you think about why plenty of men are drawn to dominatrixes? Given your views on inherent masculine nature I'm just curious what you think on that.

IP: Logged

rajji
Knowflake

Posts: 1325
From:
Registered: Jan 2011

posted March 29, 2014 02:20 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for rajji     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by PixieJane:
Btw, are you going to share what you think about why plenty of men are drawn to dominatrixes? Given your views on inherent masculine nature I'm just curious what you think on that.


Any Alternate sexual lifestyle arises out of deep need for gratification through such means which were unmet for in their lives due to many contributing factors,such as A deep feeling of neglect,A sense of insecurity abuse, abandonment, etc
It is a direct reflection of their inbuilt animosity towards a happy and joyous family.They might or might not admit it, because of fear of voluntary or involuntary abandonment from the state of blissful utopia that they are so addicted to!
In such circumstances, their need to adapt is overwhelming than letting nature take its own course! Before they even know where they
stand, they start experimenting with many choices, as if variety is the spice of life.In the end their desire for sexual gratification is hardly met for!
The obsession to sexually compulsive behaviors is a complex subject and can hardly be attributed to a single cause!Studies reveal that most sex addicts come from dysfunctional families!

What draws a man to a dominatrix also has many factors/triggers to consider...My assumption would be that,
1.Probably he was a Mama's Boy - and is characterised by effiminate tendencies
2.Castrated Male-exhibiting quite soft characteristics
3.He could have had a foster/adoptive mother-invoking submissive tendencies
4.Good old boys-might have a succubis fantasy

Well, I hope I answered your question to the best of my knowledge!

IP: Logged

Ellynlvx
Knowflake

Posts: 6486
From: Mountain Gate
Registered: Aug 2013

posted March 29, 2014 02:37 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ellynlvx     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
A lot of times that type of behaviour stems from being forced to play the dominant role in society, so the man tends to desire the opposite in private.

IP: Logged

rajji
Knowflake

Posts: 1325
From:
Registered: Jan 2011

posted March 29, 2014 02:42 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for rajji     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
if something was a law of nature then it couldn't be broken, at least not without technological help. While technology runs on the laws of nature so that technically even that doesn't break them I'll let that slide given that technology has so radically changed society and how our species live and not everyone can handle it. Our biology really wasn't set up for the world we have now, though I personally think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages (and that we'll eventually adapt, one way or another).

Technological advancement can only serve as a tool for instant gratification.As such
It requires us to understand, that our body is not merely an object to satisfy our innate carnal desire.It is more a question of moral ambiguity.

IP: Logged

Padre35
Knowflake

Posts: 3289
From: Asheville, NC, US
Registered: Jul 2012

posted March 29, 2014 02:52 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Padre35     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Ellynlvx:
A lot of times that type of behaviour stems from being forced to play the dominant role in society, so the man tends to desire the opposite in private.

Pardon me..uhm that is a straw woman. not u per se, I've had my fill of woman who wanted to be beaten, choked and spanked.

Put it this way, what exactly did "50 Shades of Grey" deal with, dominatrix's or doms?

PJ, whom I love dearly is tossing a snowman into things..she should know better

IP: Logged

PixieJane
Moderator

Posts: 4058
From: CA
Registered: Oct 2010

posted March 29, 2014 03:05 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for PixieJane     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by rajji:
Technological advancement can only serve as a tool for instant gratification.As such
It requires us to understand, that our body is not merely an object to satisfy our innate carnal desire.It is more a question of moral ambiguity.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Is English your native language?

All I can do is GUESS based the thread and how you think. You make the assumption that anyone who does not live a certain way as you define it is unnatural. I stated that there are many paradigms and that the one you have adopted is far from universal and many different models, not just the only one you consider "natural." More to the point that there is a difference between a "law of nature" (which has natural consequences rather than imposed by society) and "law imposed by humanity" (which leads to artificial rather than natural results and only happens so long as it's enforced, and such enforced laws will have their own unintended consequences because man made laws can't override natural laws). Your definition of natural is an arbitrary one created by humans rather than observed in nature as Xodian pointed out briefly.

Unfortunately I added the bit about how technology has changed society (such as jets, internet, cars, modern housing, lights available at all hours, air conditioning, ability to gain foods out of season, longer lifespans and ability to recover from extreme injury or even brought back from being briefly dead, etc, which is not the natural world we were adapted to, and these changes have happened very fast) for multiple reasons, perhaps the most important one in that it circumvents natural laws (for example, gravity doesn't allow us to fly and yet we have planes). It was a mistake for I have confused you. At least if my guess is right on what you mean (if not then I have no idea what you're trying to say).

IP: Logged

Ellynlvx
Knowflake

Posts: 6486
From: Mountain Gate
Registered: Aug 2013

posted March 29, 2014 03:15 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ellynlvx     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Padre35:
Pardon me..uhm that is a straw woman. not u per se, I've had my fill of woman who wanted to be beaten, choked and spanked.

Put it this way, what exactly did "50 Shades of Grey" deal with, dominatrix's or doms?

PJ, whom I love dearly is tossing a snowman into things..she should know better


That's Hilarious.

I was talking about men.

But, uh sorry about your horrible belt-unbuckling difficulties...

IP: Logged

rajji
Knowflake

Posts: 1325
From:
Registered: Jan 2011

posted March 29, 2014 03:28 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for rajji     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Fastforward now to this date where Science and Medicine has allowed us to surpass such limitations and usher in a more technological age. As such, the humans need to learn to adapt to these new changes. And that means equal recognition for the right of an INDIVIDUAL (not just men) to achieve personal growth through their own means, needs and self-actualization. That means going beyond the mundane model of the 50s God Fearing "Family Unit" *Blech.*

developments in science and medical feilds is an independant factor with respect to sexual morality and progress of the society.
I dont see any changes as such in the liberal society with ever increasing rates of teenage pregnancy, divorce and STDs!

IP: Logged

PixieJane
Moderator

Posts: 4058
From: CA
Registered: Oct 2010

posted March 29, 2014 03:32 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for PixieJane     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by rajji:
I hope I answered your question to the best of my knowledge!

Thanks for your response, and just so you know I did read all of it.

quote:
Originally posted by Padre35:
PJ, whom I love dearly is tossing a snowman into things

Rajji was talking about an inherent masculine nature that she believes is universal (and that any other version is pathology) and I got curious how she explained the men into dominatrixes, and such men are not that rare, there's a lot of demand (and thus money) to be made by a dominatrix (and btw, I expect most of the women--straight women anyway, not sure why--who are dominatrixes do it for the money or to ironically please her man, not that she desires the role for its own sake).

My goal was to get a window into how she was thinking (probably my Scorpio Jupiter at work). And I got it. I have no interest in debating her (at least on that) I was just trying to understand how her mind works as I'm curious about such things...I might use the knowledge to create an interesting character in one of my fics someday (in fact I'm already tossing the idea of a mind reading human telepath raised by Greys and trying to bluff being a normal member of human society to government agents having the luck to run into someone who thinks like that and therefore adopts such a mindset in her bluffing the government agents looking for the alien grown human with interesting, perhaps even comedic, results...).

IP: Logged

PixieJane
Moderator

Posts: 4058
From: CA
Registered: Oct 2010

posted March 29, 2014 03:38 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for PixieJane     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by rajji:
developments in science and medical feilds is an independant factor with respect to sexual morality and progress of the society.
I dont see any changes as such in the liberal society with ever increasing rates of teenage pregnancy, divorce and STDs!

False. Liberal societies tend to have less of all of that, in part due to advanced birth control (compare Eastern Europe to Western Europe, for example, or third world countries where they're barred such education and tools, and divorce is less common in Canada, Finland, and Australia despite that they're more liberal than the United States, notable exceptions like Sweden--on divorce only--aside). And in the United States the states that teach it in school and make it more available in the US have the least, while those that try to keep people ignorant of it and make it difficult or at least socially unacceptable to use have more teen pregnancy, divorces, etc. For more on that:

http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/impact-of-conservative-protestantism-on -regional-divorce-rates/

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.

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.


And more:
http://youtu.be/Ex0_Hc2H65w?t=2m28s

IP: Logged

rajji
Knowflake

Posts: 1325
From:
Registered: Jan 2011

posted March 29, 2014 04:03 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for rajji     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by PixieJane:
[quote] I don't understand what you're trying to say. Is English your native language?

I thought your mention of technology was more of having to do with using -email for exchanging of ideas related to sex or rather simply put online dating.Or access to pornography...my answer was in response to that.

IP: Logged

rajji
Knowflake

Posts: 1325
From:
Registered: Jan 2011

posted March 29, 2014 04:20 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for rajji     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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.
For atheists like you, there is still the belief that humans have reasoning ability and with it the laws of nature are discernable.which is again morally correct.

That dosent necessarily make me a bible thumper as you see it to be!

IP: Logged

FireMoon
Knowflake

Posts: 1453
From: Minnesota
Registered: Mar 2012

posted March 29, 2014 09:01 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for FireMoon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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.
For atheists like you, there is still the belief that humans have reasoning ability and with it the laws of nature are discernable.which is again morally correct.

That dosent necessarily make me a bible thumper as you see it to be!


But again that's a contradiction because for theists like you, isn't it true that God created nature for the needs and agendas of man? (And by man I mean humans but those are the terms often used) So wouldn't nature be expected to adhere to our laws, not the other way around?

I'm actually agreeing with you in saying that's false, humans are very much a part of nature and aren't immune to its laws. But I really don't believe it's nature that encourages male dominance, racism, etc. I think that comes from socio-economic agendas backed by divine "morality" as a justification

If you think it's ok to exploit and dominate whole groups of people fine, it's just the "holier than thou" touch that drives me crazy lol


IP: Logged

FireMoon
Knowflake

Posts: 1453
From: Minnesota
Registered: Mar 2012

posted March 29, 2014 11:36 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for FireMoon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Orca whales live in matriarchal social groups and happen to be extremely intelligent with more highly evolved limbic systems than humans (suggesting the capacity for greater emotional and intellectual depth)

http://theraptorlab.wordpress.com/2013/08/14/inside -the-mind-of-a-killer-whale-a-qa-with-the-neuroscientist-from-blackfish/

That's just one example (although you have yet to give any of your own) and I understand there's variation but just saying male dominance is a "law of nature" isn't very convincing.

Eta, Oh I hadn't read all the comments but just realized Xodian already mentioned this along with other examples... But it's still a valid point you apparently feel no need to respond to lol

IP: Logged

7thGuardian
Knowflake

Posts: 1139
From: Transylvania
Registered: May 2012

posted March 29, 2014 02:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for 7thGuardian     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by FireMoon:
Orca whales live in matriarchal social groups and happen to be extremely intelligent with more highly evolved limbic systems than humans (suggesting the capacity for greater emotional and intellectual depth)

http://theraptorlab.wordpress.com/2013/08/14/inside -the-mind-of-a-killer-whale-a-qa-with-the-neuroscientist-from-blackfish/

That's just one example (although you have yet to give any of your own) and I understand there's variation but just saying male dominance is a "law of nature" isn't very convincing.

Eta, Oh I hadn't read all the comments but just realized Xodian already mentioned this along with other examples... But it's still a valid point you apparently feel no need to respond to lol


Even with this selective example - you're only partially correct. Male dominance takes place even among killer whales. It's a common habit among most species - when it comes to matting, a natural selection - where the dominant male takes the wining prize (so tospeak) - for the sake of evolution. Same is valid for killer whales - even though they're polygamous. Males have to prove their dominance - even among species where the females are bigger and stronger (more common among spiders), which is not the case with - Orca males whom are bigger and stronger than females.

If so, why do Orca females have an restoratives position among their social group (one might ask - and i'd take it - that's where you got stuck)? The answers is simple - because usually, they live longer (even 2 decades longer if not more) - thus they're more mature and wiser among their species. If same would be true for humans - if males would die around the age of 40 and women would have a life spam close to 70 or beyond - even the humans females would be authoritative among our species.

You got one thing right though - based on their behavior, they seem to surpass our species in terms of emotional intelligence. As a specie - the humans are more complex (it's also why - we rule this planet), a complexity that's defined by many factors - while the main would be our individuality. We look alike (more or less - the main similarities being reflected by our anatomy) - but we're quite different from each-other, both on physical level and psychological - and the potential that can derive from that. That being said - some humans (quite rare apparently) - or capable of a high emotional intelligence, but even they - might prove to be limited compared to an Orca - when it comes to the extent to which they can maintain their emotional intelligence (the downside of our intellect - both a gift and course).

Question: Would you prorate with a wimpy male - who can't even handle his own **** let alone - be a masculine figure in a relationship?

IP: Logged

FireMoon
Knowflake

Posts: 1453
From: Minnesota
Registered: Mar 2012

posted March 29, 2014 07:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for FireMoon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by 7thGuardian:
Even with this selective example - you're only partially correct. Male dominance takes place even among killer whales. It's a common habit among most species - when it comes to matting, a natural selection - where the dominant male takes the wining prize (so tospeak) - for the sake of evolution. Same is valid for killer whales - even though they're polygamous. Males have to prove their dominance - even among species where the females are bigger and stronger (more common among spiders), which is not the case with - Orca males whom are bigger and stronger than females.

If so, why do Orca females have an restoratives position among their social group (one might ask - and i'd take it - that's where you got stuck)? The answers is simple - because usually, they live longer (even 2 decades longer if not more) - thus they're more mature and wiser among their species. If same would be true for humans - if males would die around the age of 40 and women would have a life spam close to 70 or beyond - even the humans females would be authoritative among our species.

You got one thing right though - based on their behavior, they seem to surpass our species in terms of emotional intelligence. As a specie - the humans are more complex (it's also why - we rule this planet), a complexity that's defined by many factors - while the main would be our individuality. We look alike (more or less - the main similarities being reflected by our anatomy) - but we're quite different from each-other, both on physical level and psychological - and the potential that can derive from that. That being said - some humans (quite rare apparently) - or capable of a high emotional intelligence, but even they - might prove to be limited compared to an Orca - when it comes to the extent to which they can maintain their emotional intelligence (the downside of our intellect - both a gift and course).

Question: Would you prorate with a wimpy male - who can't even handle his own **** let alone - be a masculine figure in a relationship?


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.

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?

Eta, I'm just on my phone so this isn't a very well put together response, but those are just my first thoughts...

IP: Logged

rajji
Knowflake

Posts: 1325
From:
Registered: Jan 2011

posted March 30, 2014 09:32 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for rajji     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

quote:
False. Liberal societies tend to have less of all of that, in part due to advanced birth control (compare Eastern Europe to Western Europe, for example, or third world countries where they're barred such education and tools, and divorce is less common in Canada, Finland, and Australia despite that they're more liberal than the United States, notable exceptions like Sweden--on divorce only--aside). And in the United States the states that teach it in school and make it more available in the US have the least, while those that try to keep people ignorant of it and make it difficult or at least socially unacceptable to use have more teen pregnancy, divorces, etc.

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?

IP: Logged


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright 2000-2014

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a