HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Gender & Orientation » Men's Group (Group) » No Job? No Date for You! » Reply #37
In the discussion thread: No Job? No Date for You! [View all]

Response to Major Nikon (Reply #36)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 10:06 AM

37. True, but it is interesting that you put it that way...

It is this idea that women are somehow "more evolved" than men are that is particularly ponderous. I mean, it makes no rational sense. How can one gender in a species evolve beyond the other either in an intellectual sense or in a biological sense without becoming themselves procreatively non-viable? If a child is the product of the genetic code of a male and a female, how could the "more evolved female" come to exist when clearly the "inferior genetic makeup" of the male must be devolving it on each successive generation?

Yet the implication is always there in the rhetoric. Women have more evolved sensibilities, and they choose mates for positive, non-objectifying, intellectually affirmative reasons, while men just want some objectified eye-candy that will give them the erections they need to have sex... disgusting, penetrative, invasive sex which degrades women by its very nature. The implication is that not only is attractiveness a despicable, objectifying, degrading way to choose a mate, but it the ONLY criterion with which males select, and therefore other things like intelligence, philosophy, a sense of humor, kindness, and the myriad of other positive qualities which men find pleasurable in the company of a mate never do enter into it.

It's not a double standard, it's just plain old self-gratifying bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 57 replies Author Time Post
Bonobo Sep 2012 OP
caseymoz Sep 2012 #1
Bonobo Sep 2012 #2
caseymoz Sep 2012 #3
lumberjack_jeff Sep 2012 #7
caseymoz Sep 2012 #12
Major Nikon Sep 2012 #13
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #15
Major Nikon Sep 2012 #16
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #17
Major Nikon Sep 2012 #19
lumberjack_jeff Sep 2012 #5
Zalatix Sep 2012 #4
lumberjack_jeff Sep 2012 #6
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #18
Zalatix Sep 2012 #21
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #22
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #8
loli phabay Sep 2012 #9
Bonobo Sep 2012 #10
ElboRuum Sep 2012 #28
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Sep 2012 #11
Major Nikon Sep 2012 #14
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #20
Bonobo Sep 2012 #23
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #24
seabeyond Sep 2012 #25
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #27
ElboRuum Sep 2012 #29
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #30
ElboRuum Sep 2012 #31
Major Nikon Sep 2012 #36
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply True, but it is interesting that you put it that way...
ElboRuum Sep 2012 #37
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #38
Major Nikon Sep 2012 #41
ElboRuum Sep 2012 #42
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Sep 2012 #35
Major Nikon Sep 2012 #43
MadrasT Sep 2012 #26
Bonobo Sep 2012 #32
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #33
opiate69 Sep 2012 #34
Major Nikon Sep 2012 #47
Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #55
Major Nikon Sep 2012 #44
Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #50
lumberjack_jeff Sep 2012 #57
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #39
ElboRuum Sep 2012 #40
Shitty Mitty Sep 2012 #45
Bonobo Sep 2012 #46
Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #49
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #51
Major Nikon Sep 2012 #48
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #52
Major Nikon Sep 2012 #53
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #54
Sen. Walter Sobchak Sep 2012 #56
Please login to view edit histories.