General Music Chat

So, this morning, the Today Show's guests were Ozzy Osborne & Barry Manilow. They didn't have Ozzy sing, but Barry did a lil number. I think they should have done a duet, don't you? That would have been a riot!

And why oh why oh WHY are they STILL yappin' on about Tiger Woods' cheating? Is this REALLY STILL national news? Good grief!

I mean, Bin Laden's making threats, Haiti's in shambles, & all they can talk about is some guy's cheating on his wife in thier incessant monkey-chatter?

They've even come out with some stupid commercial to "remind" all the men out there not to cheat. How insulting will they get before someone blows up thier studio? I notice that thier anti-cheat commercial propaganda didn't show a WOMAN cheating. Oh no! They showed a whole bunch of women slapping the male cheater in the face repeatedly. Does no one else see a theme, here, against the male of the species?

Makes me sick!

Biologically we're not much different than chimps, who are extremely permiscuous. Female chimps can't do much when a bigger and stronger male wants to mount her; in our species they can get lawyers and policemen after you.

A damned shame, that! I've seen a lot of ppl of the feminine persuasion I'd like to mount!

I caught a really big bass one time and somebody asked me if I was going to mount it. I told him I don't do them things...

Biologically we're not much different than chimps, who are extremely permiscuous.

Why do you think this means anything concerning human relationships?

Jimmy, I just see you as far too intelligent for this kind of rationalization.

"WE ARE "animals" still Chippy, in our FLESH."

Your words, Craig. It fits this argument very well. We ARE hard-wired to want to mate, as men, with as many women as we can. It's only our societal restrictions that prevent this sort of activity, is it not?

Seems to me that if they want to stop this tendency, though, they're doing one hell of a great job of it, by removing everything that has true biologically male features & behaviors from our arts & fashions, and by outlawing our very maleness with our societal taboos.

Today's "man" is supposed to be as touchy-feely as women of the past. He may shave his body hair, & even wear makeup, & hide or surgically repair his bald spot, to appear less masculine. He's supposed to be as true as any woman from the 50's, & how often do you see the man depicted as the stupid one in relationships on tv & in books, especially in commercials? He will continually defer to the "wiser woman" in these things.

We are constantly reminded that to be a "mature, modern man" is to be constantly questioning yourself, & to compare your actions to that which a woman would choose to do; to try to be less competitive (!); to be more aware of the feelings of everything & everyone; that life is to be considered absolutely the most sacred thing of all, even in the case of a serial murderer. These were the attributes of a woman in the past, but now they're considered the norm for everyone. There is no more true seperation of the sexes in the workplace, the areas of domestic duties, in parenting, in our societal roles, even in our traditional roles in the sex act itself. No wonder we're confused all the time.

The man used to be the voice of law & of reason, & the woman was the voice of emotion. Think about it...what have we become?

Damn Philby now you got me confused!

Im supposed to be touchy feely? Sensitive?

Yes, JW, & keep wearing that wig, & add some make up while you're at it!

And don't forget the ankle bracelet.

Ozzy could have done that duet he did with Lita Ford. Barry M. would sing the woman's part of course. lol

"WE ARE "animals" still Chippy, in our FLESH."

Your words, Craig. It fits this argument very well.

No, it doesn't.

Comparing modern humans with primates, regarding human relationships is just stupid. Which you will see right below...

We ARE hard-wired to want to mate, as men, with as many women as we can. It's only our societal restrictions that prevent this sort of activity, is it not?

Societal restrictions? More complex than that. Humans are SEPARATING from their animal ancestry Phil. If you want to call that "becoming a higher animal" than fine, but WE ARE evolving as a species. For you and Jimmy to believe that REVERSING our evolution, back to primate behaviors, would be a good thing, is LAUGHABLE.

Let's get the "stupid" stuff out of the way...

Your position, is that it is NATURAL for men to have sex with as many women as possible, because we are "hard-wired" to do so. What you are really saying, is that our evolutionary history, is JUSTIFICATION to not engage in (or to break) monogamous relationships.

Let's apply this rationale to similar biological functions:

- We are hard-wired to sh*t whenever and WHEREVER the need arises, so I should be able to sh*t in front of everyone in the checkout aisle of Walmart, if I need to go at that particular moment. I am fighting nature if I don't do so.

- Girls are having their periods earlier than ever, at 9 and 10 years old, so because they are biologically hard-wired and CAPABLE of having children at 9 and 10 years old... they should do so. To not have sex and get pregnant and procreate at 9 and 10 years old, is acting against nature.

- We are hard-wired to TAKE whatever we want, if we are bigger than the "primate" next to us. So, bigger men, like Craig, should be allowed to come into MY HOME (Phil's home) and take my food from me... WHILE I AM EATING IT... and then rape my wife in front of me, because he wants to, and he is big enough to do so. "Craig is fighting nature, if he does not take everything I own for himself, including my mate!"


Above, are all the EASY arguments to yours and Jimmy's position. It took me 5 seconds or less, to run that through my head, when I first read Jimmy's statement.

Think a little.

The more complex argument AGAINST your position, is that WE ARE EVOLVING. We "USED" to have hair all over our bodies Phil. Thick hair, like chimpanzees do today. But we don't now. We have lost the "NEED" for it, and hence, modern generations of humans are not born with all that fur. But we didn't lose it overnight. Evolution takes awhile, so that we end up maintaining USELESS traits for awhile, until they are weeded out.

What has served modern man best, is... COOPERATION.

We have developed CIVIL SOCIETIES (for the most part) where people AGREE to COOPERATE for the betterment and SURVIVAL of the SPECIES AS A WHOLE.

It is a PRIMITIVE urge, to have sex with as many females as possible, to procreate (so they tell us) but it no longer SERVES modern humans to behave like animals. Sexually transmitted diseases INCREASE as sex with multiple partners increase. Society expects CIVILITY where people don't just go around beating each other up, because we FEEL like it. Self disciple is absolutely necessary. Men generally learn traits like "self-disciple" from their FATHERS. To create a society with LESS FATHERS in the household, does not SERVE society. If you remember, I posted statistics on how high a percentage it was, of prison inmates who grew up in single-parent households. Impregnating women as often as possible, as far and wide as possible, is NOT in society's best interest. Multiple wives is not realistic either, because the population of the world is roughly divided RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE, with MALE and FEMALE. Just by NUMBERS ALONE... monogamy makes more sense. There are almost EQUAL numbers of men and women in the world. To take MORE for yourself, disrupts that balance, weakens the availability of women to men, thereby increasing aggressive behaviors, and more DEADLY competition, to mate.

Just as the development of CIVIL SOCIETY has caused us to CEASE crapping in public, and in any location, where we feel the need arise, and has also ended the need to compete (sometimes to the death) for a female mate, so too, has irresponsibility in sexual relationships become unnecessary.

The need to prevent such detrimental effects on society, FAR OUTWEIGHS the "personal" and "temporary" gratification, of merely wanting to have multiple places to stick your penis.

Find a nice warm one, that you really like, and STAY WITH IT, as opposed to teaching others that reversing CIVILITY developed over THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of years, is somehow natural or desirable.

WRONG ON BOTH COUNTS!

It is our evolution and GROWTH as a species, that results in our creating civil societies, and has resulted in our domination of the planet as well. It would not be practical or desirable, to return to living in trees, without housing, and begin to devolve and grow all that hair back, over hundreds of thousand of years (actually... we still have, relatively speaking, the same amount of hair, it is just thinner and shorter now, so that it "appears" almost invisible in some places on the body) - And neither are the other things I mentioned, desirable or practical in modern CIVIL society... like crapping anywhere you feel, killing or maiming weaker males, simply to take what they have for yourself, multitudes of fatherless children, sex and pregnancy for 8 and 9 year old girls, etc...

Seems to me that if they want to stop this tendency, though, they're doing one hell of a great job of it, by removing everything that has true biologically male features & behaviors from our arts & fashions, and by outlawing our very maleness with our societal taboos.

Ok whatever.

The REALITY is, that free-thinking modern humans get to CHOOSE what being a male should mean, or not mean. And, the REALITY is, that even ANIMALS get to define, what being a male means, or doesn't mean. And this too evolves, even among CURRENT PRIMATES. There is an entire region, where male primates have CEASED their aggressive behaviors toward other males, and toward the FEMALES TOO! This occurred when MALES in that region, contracted some disease, from eating contaminated waste left in garbage dumps. This disease spread quickly, and nearly decimated the MALE population of the region. The males who were left, could now not so easily simply dominate and abuse the females of the species if they wanted, because they were outnumbered heavily now, by females. This new situation REQUIRED the males to now, cooperate with the females, and cease their aggression toward them, in order to survive and remain a part of the "community".

The amazing thing is... that after the Male population rebounded, this new trait of cooperating with females, and protecting them FROM AGGRESSION (learned from the other females, when the male population became low) continued on. And not only did it continue on, because new-born males were being raised INSIDE this new relationship of females being respected by males, but... it was observed that when NEW MALES from other areas, began to integrate into this particular group of primates... if they tried to exhibit their normally aggressive behaviors toward females, the males of this group SHUT THEM DOWN INSTANTLY! After a few times of this, they CEASED their supposedly "natural" behavior of aggression toward females, and ASSIMILATED into the clan's type of behavior toward women. So, in other words... new recruits into this society, were FORCED to cease their aggression toward females if they wanted to remain in that society.

So even current PRIMATES possess the ability to CHANGE what you call "natural" in favor of a "new natural" or a BETTER ALTERNATIVE!

So, while animals are emulating humans more and more, if you really want to emulate animals instead, then what can I say? I'll send you a postcard in jail, after your sentencing for the Walmart incident!

There is no more true seperation of the sexes in the workplace, the areas of domestic duties, in parenting, in our societal roles, even in our traditional roles in the sex act itself.

Separation on sexes in the workplace? Why is this necessary? And the roles of men and women are EVOLVING. Evolution has brought us better brain processing, which has resulted in the revelation that COOPERATION is preferable to fighting to survive as an individual. Cooperation requires a family (or society) doing what is necessary for the BETTERMENT and SURVIVAL of the "group". Survival of "ALL". And because the INDIVIDUAL is "part" of the "ALL" then our individual needs are automatically met.

No wonder we're confused all the time.

I'm not confused at all.

The man used to be the voice of law & of reason, & the woman was the voice of emotion. Think about it...what have we become?

Yeah, there is no real "used to be" Phil. Archaeologists have found ruins of some ancient civilizations where WOMEN RULED. Granted, this is not the "norm" but it HAS existed in history previously.

We are evolving as a species Phil. And like previous branches of our primitive ancestral tree... If you are not evolving too, then you die out.

We're using tools now Phil.

You are still staying in the tree, scavenging already dead animals for their bone marrow.

Enjoy the safe view from the tree, and picking through bones up there...

But, I'm off to hunt BIG GAME, with the tools that allowed me to do so.

for the record, the tiger thing was intentionally thrust into the spotlight the week that story broke.


That same week, two disturbingly important and news-worthy things happened, and not one major media network (on TV) reported either of them. Most all major papers didn't mention, or intentionally watered down the events, buried them on page 33, and also reported biased parts to alter the perceptions and make them un-important.

That was no accident.

I will leave ppl to their devices to go find out what REALLY should have been news that week. Part of what's wrong today is that people DON'T actively seek the truth, they are satisfied with being spoon-fed biased news and lies, and in the case of Tiger Woods - Deflection: "HEY LOOK OVER HERE!".

Tiger Woods is not a conspiring... "deflection".

We are a CELEBRITY OBSESSED society, and Tiger Woods is the most famous athlete in America. Maybe the world? He has also been squeaky clean... as far as anyone knew... the very image, of a wholesome family man, which makes the story even more palpable. Not to mention that our human nature is to pounce, when giants fall to the ground... particularly when a glaring contradiction occurs... Imagine if Billy Graham was found to have numerous affairs? Or if Stephen King was found to have plagiarized all of his novels. It would be SHOCKING (and therefore interesting - like rubbernecking a car accident) when someone great, falters in an area of life they were previously praised for.

btw... His wife has called off the divorce, and they have met privately, since he has been attending counseling fro sexual addiction.

LMAO

As our techologies continue to dump toxins into our environment that act suspiciously like female hormones in the species, the male is being eradicated anyway. Sperm counts are lowering throughout America, in particular, & not only in humans, I might add.

I used to have a book by Joseph Campbell that included some interesting myths. One of them explained why the male was the leader of the species. I have lost the book, due to an unfortunate loan to a former friend, but here's the gist of it.

The story, as I recall, comes from a South American tribe.

The women of this tribe were tired of doing only "women's work," & decided to take over. The chief's wife came up with an ingenious plan. They made costumes & dressed up as gods. They then presented themselves to the fearful men, & told them how they wanted things to run in the future, with the women ruling things.

The men became very frightened of the masks & extra limbs the women fashioned into thier costumes, & truly believed them to be the gods, themselves. They followed the new way of doing things.

The tribe began to flounder as the women took thier leisure, & the men had to do, not only the women's work, but thier own, as well.

One guy became rather suspicious of the new trend, & snuck & spied on the women as they were talking about how stupid the men were, & how much better things were for them, now, since they had taken over. When he reported the activities to the men, they rose up & killed all the women.

They then overtook another tribe, killed the men & took thier women, & never again gave them any power over the men.

Looking at that, & looking at the garden of Eden story, I see a common theme - women are not to be trusted. LOL

They are not hard-wired to rule. Men are.

I don't think that comparing humans to other primates is stupid at all, Craig. After all - we ARE primates, are we not? Comparisons between similar species is one way in which we learn about ourselves.

Whatever you may think about how much "higher" we are than mere animals, you must keep in mine that we ARE, in fact, animals. We are mammals & we are primates. Never forget that. We will never evolve to be anything but, & the attributes that make us what & who we are should always be remembered as we continue to evolve.

We seem to be adament that we must force evolution to move faster, though, either through law or technology, & I'm not so sure that this is a good thing to do. The natural process would probably be best, imho.

You yourself have allowed that "might is right" in foreign policy, for example, concerning the middle east & the oil that is under thier sands. You think it is not only in our power, but that it is our right to make sure that we get our fair share of that wealth, & that is at the societal level.

It seems to me that that is a rather unusual stance for one who claims that we should be well beyond that sort of activity at the personal level.

Now, let's look again at the phenomena of the little girls getting thier periods earlier. Once again, this is due to our technologies, our dumping actual female hormones into our very foods. Once again, we force evolution, either with intent or not. However, as these young girls reach thier puberty at such early ages, they will also feel a primal directive to mate. As we hand over ever more power to the female of the species, I'll leave it to you to guess the results of this scenario, which is happening, btw. (Can you say "prostitots?")

While you may say that we are hard-wired to take what we want, I would counter that the natural evolutionary process has removed a lot of those older drives, & in place is a need to cooperate, to a degree, already. That can be seen in other primates, as well, so I have no big argument with that.

However, it is only in the most recent of times that we have decided to make everyone equal in all things, whether they can physically or mentally handle it or not!

When I worked for GM over 10 years ago, they told us that the women they had hired were expected to handle things just as any man would & could, yet they continually had to make exceptions for the frailer females, when it came to handling heavier objects. Still, they received the same pay, but they also got more leeway in thier duties.

The point is that there is no way you can make us all physically & mentally equal in all things as we are. The only way you can appear to do that is through technology, the same technology that is eradicating the male in very physical ways, through our pollution.

Fewer men are being born, Craig, due to the pseudo & very real female hormones we're dumping into our systems in our foods & through our environment.

As we have continued to force women to work through economic necessity, we also have had to dumb down the workplace, to a degree, in terms of those areas that were once considered strictly male-predominated fields. As we continue to create new ways of making the work easier for everyone, we ignore the pollution that results from the metals & the plastics that we keep experimenting with.

As they have entered the work force, forcing more & more interaction between the sexes, we have had to write more & more laws to protect them from the male biological directive. Never before in the history of mankind have men been in contact with so many women. It's bound to tweak some primal responses. The women aren't supposed to do anything but become more male, & the males, more female, as a result of it all.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with living in trees or men killing men over women & goods. It has everything to do with forced evolution, however, & I don't think that the direction we're pointed in is the right one for any species, because it's turning out that the male is much more fragile than we ever thought he was, & not in a touchy-feely sort of way, either.

Cant force evolution, universally impossible...