Physiologic or phychologic? The historical role of males.

Lyrs · Post by **Lyrs** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 3:26 pm

i want bigger breasts

danielwang · Post by **danielwang** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 3:39 pm

'mistress-samwise' wrote:Male attributes, as well as female attributes, are indeed influenced physiologically... I don't think either males of females "have it easier" than the other. It is hard to live up to the archetype of your gender.

and another quote

'SS5_Majin_Bebi' wrote: Jesus FUCKING christ I hate my own species more every fucking day, its driving me insane!!

skanks · Post by **skanks** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 6:49 pm

Lyrs wrote:i want bigger breasts

I want you to have bigger breats too

SS5_Majin_Bebi · Post by **SS5_Majin_Bebi** » Mon Sep 08, 2003 1:40 am

skanks wrote:
Lyrs wrote:i want bigger breasts
I want you to have bigger breats too

I wanna date a girl with big breasts.... who doesn't sump me coz she's hung up on her ex.

Oh. THATS not gonna happen.

Toecutter · Post by **Toecutter** » Mon Sep 08, 2003 4:28 am

The aggressive tendencies of males have worked their way through millions of years of evolution (not just in humans, but in all sexually reproducing creatures), because it offers a higher probability of the species' genes being passed on to the next generation. There could easily have been sub-species of sexually reproductive organisms with females having aggressive tendencies, or both parties just plain lacking any guts at all. However, those sub-species would not be able to survive, because there are situations in life when logically fighting is a greater risk than retreating, but retreating will get you killed anyway. The concept of self-sacrifice for preservation of one's genes to the next generation is a logical argument, but what about self-sacrifice in hopeless situations, when one's genes will be killed off anyway? What good could throwing one's life away in a hopeless battle be if there's no chance of any component of one to survive?

This is obviously an imperfection in the design of aggressive males. However, this aggressive behavior fits most scenarios very well, in which there is something worth dying for. The desire to put everything on the line, to push oneself to the physical limits and beyond, is what has been responsible for eliminating predators, and competition to vital food sources, ensuring the survival of the best-adapted genes. The side effects of said aggressive tendencies aren't so hot, but evolution is not perfect. Evolution is nothing more than trial and error, introducing a random screw-up into the transcription of DNA, and then seeing how it deals with the world around it.

It is because these screw-ups are occuring in all living things on the Earth, and that the behavior/conflict of the resulting future generations impact the Earth's environment, which in turn affects the random screw-ups, that we have a haphazardly formed method of closing in on, but not truly achieving, perfection.

It's amazing how many times I try to explain this to people, but they just don't get it. Evolution works because it's pure chaos, wrapped up in the illusion of order. The downsides to males having strong leadership, teamwork, and aggressive tendencies are obvious, but they exist merely as another random screw-up. The reason they persisted to today, is because as bad as things got, this was the best way to give sexually reproductive species the edge at the time.