EMS
my sister blogged about adulterous husbands, and unruly brats.
i'll field the easier one first.
i always say there's nothing that a good kick to the head can't cure, but in all sincerity, a little firm discipline in a child's life can go a long way.
now i'm still toiling with the question whether good kids are inherently that way or made, the whole nature vs. nurture concept. i think it may be both, but moreso the latter.
my job allows me to deal with people and their wonderful offspring almost on a daily basis. and you see the spectrum. kids that cry over denied candy, kids that cry over denied candy until that candy is given to them, and kids that ask for candy and are either denied or rewarded.
i think how the parent reacts to the child is very important. too many parents get walked on because they either choose to spoil the child or they're tired of having to deal with a brat that they created.
i think the worst example is when a parent asks a child not to do something (i.e. pick up candy from the checkstand) the parent will, in a calm voice tell the child that it's wrong. two seconds later, the kid is back with the candy. the mom tells the kid, 'no', in that sheepish voice. the kid goes back for round three, and the mom's tired of dealing with the kid, so it gets some candy.
at least be firm with the kid. don't let it get away with whatever it wants. you're just creating a person that won't interact well when it gets out into the real world. if parents weren't such dipshits, there wouldn't be so many assholes out there.
although i do have to say that there are a number of well-mannered children that will go through a line and cause no harm. its just the evil ones that stand out. beat the fuck outta that kid once and they'll remember what's up...
or at least that's what i feel like doing.
but the thing is if you start off well from the beginning, you won't have to lay a hand on the kid.
as for infidelity, diamond argues that it's human nature.
i may have already blogged about it, but he argues that the slight size difference between males and females hints at a species that are fairly monogamous but are somewhat also into extramarital activities.
primates like gibbons who show no sexual dimorphism are wholly monogamous.
but its also something they do because of their social lifestyle. to optimally gather resources to live, gibbons live only in pairs and ward off any other gibbons coming into their territory.
again, i think i've mentioned how gorrillas and orangutans males are much larger than their counterparts and they practice a harem-like lifestyle.
there's enough resources for the male and a couple females to survive together.
chimpanzees are slightly sexually dimorphic and are a social species, so they compulsively have sex with anyone in their troop.
but for some reason, humans have developed this need (except if doing it for sport) to have sex in private rather than out in the open and socially like chimps. females seem to be more paranoid about this than males. maybe its to keep some sort of anonymity of the father if a baby is to come along.
human females require the male to be around for resources (we're talking in evolutionary stages) so marriage is necessary to rear a child. but as humans are social animals, males encounter other females, and since they have no real necessary ties to the female, if she can't keep him around 24/7, then the male will get out and get it on with other women who hopefully have someone to care for the child at home.
its just a sneaky game to get your DNA out there without any of the responsibility.
i think i mentioned before how certain seabirds practice these same activities.
they have their 'monogamous' partner, but while she's away from the nest feeding, he goes out and fertilizes other females who are still at their nest.
altruism is nowhere to be found.
its all about passing on of one's own genes.
however, i am kinda confused by the number of women who declare that they aren't going to have children. maybe its just because they haven't yet reached the point of stability that they were hoping for when they would want to have a child.
or they're just selfish and don't want to go through 9 months of burden and some hours of pain.
gay people kinda defy my logic too. but i'm sure someone out there has an acceptable theory.
sorry. i'm bored. nothing better to do at night but blog.
i guess i could read more...
i'll field the easier one first.
i always say there's nothing that a good kick to the head can't cure, but in all sincerity, a little firm discipline in a child's life can go a long way.
now i'm still toiling with the question whether good kids are inherently that way or made, the whole nature vs. nurture concept. i think it may be both, but moreso the latter.
my job allows me to deal with people and their wonderful offspring almost on a daily basis. and you see the spectrum. kids that cry over denied candy, kids that cry over denied candy until that candy is given to them, and kids that ask for candy and are either denied or rewarded.
i think how the parent reacts to the child is very important. too many parents get walked on because they either choose to spoil the child or they're tired of having to deal with a brat that they created.
i think the worst example is when a parent asks a child not to do something (i.e. pick up candy from the checkstand) the parent will, in a calm voice tell the child that it's wrong. two seconds later, the kid is back with the candy. the mom tells the kid, 'no', in that sheepish voice. the kid goes back for round three, and the mom's tired of dealing with the kid, so it gets some candy.
at least be firm with the kid. don't let it get away with whatever it wants. you're just creating a person that won't interact well when it gets out into the real world. if parents weren't such dipshits, there wouldn't be so many assholes out there.
although i do have to say that there are a number of well-mannered children that will go through a line and cause no harm. its just the evil ones that stand out. beat the fuck outta that kid once and they'll remember what's up...
or at least that's what i feel like doing.
but the thing is if you start off well from the beginning, you won't have to lay a hand on the kid.
as for infidelity, diamond argues that it's human nature.
i may have already blogged about it, but he argues that the slight size difference between males and females hints at a species that are fairly monogamous but are somewhat also into extramarital activities.
primates like gibbons who show no sexual dimorphism are wholly monogamous.
but its also something they do because of their social lifestyle. to optimally gather resources to live, gibbons live only in pairs and ward off any other gibbons coming into their territory.
again, i think i've mentioned how gorrillas and orangutans males are much larger than their counterparts and they practice a harem-like lifestyle.
there's enough resources for the male and a couple females to survive together.
chimpanzees are slightly sexually dimorphic and are a social species, so they compulsively have sex with anyone in their troop.
but for some reason, humans have developed this need (except if doing it for sport) to have sex in private rather than out in the open and socially like chimps. females seem to be more paranoid about this than males. maybe its to keep some sort of anonymity of the father if a baby is to come along.
human females require the male to be around for resources (we're talking in evolutionary stages) so marriage is necessary to rear a child. but as humans are social animals, males encounter other females, and since they have no real necessary ties to the female, if she can't keep him around 24/7, then the male will get out and get it on with other women who hopefully have someone to care for the child at home.
its just a sneaky game to get your DNA out there without any of the responsibility.
i think i mentioned before how certain seabirds practice these same activities.
they have their 'monogamous' partner, but while she's away from the nest feeding, he goes out and fertilizes other females who are still at their nest.
altruism is nowhere to be found.
its all about passing on of one's own genes.
however, i am kinda confused by the number of women who declare that they aren't going to have children. maybe its just because they haven't yet reached the point of stability that they were hoping for when they would want to have a child.
or they're just selfish and don't want to go through 9 months of burden and some hours of pain.
gay people kinda defy my logic too. but i'm sure someone out there has an acceptable theory.
sorry. i'm bored. nothing better to do at night but blog.
i guess i could read more...
4 Comments:
I would like to see your facts that explain that women are more paranoid than men about having sex in publc.
I would also like to know what resources our noble men are providing that brings us women that "makes marriage necessary to raise a child".
I will tell you what it is about women not wanting to have kids anymore. Frankly, we don't have to. We didn't use to have a choice because you horny bastards would knock us up all the time. Now we have birth control and jobs (maybe the "resources" you were speaking of earlier) that allow us to merely have sex with you while still maintaining control of our bodies and our lives as we know them.
Also I have a question because I'm not a sciencey kind of person I don't know much about evolution, but how far down the eveolutionary chain do we have to be before it doesn't all go back to the "spreading of the seed"? It seems to me like we should be past that by now. After all, we have a clitoris now (maybe we always did, I don't know), which tells me that sex can merely be about enjoyment...
"spreading our seed" goes back to unicellualar asexual reproduction and will persist for the eternity of life.
when i talk about getting resources for the children, i'm talking protein from meat. i'm talking a caloric diet beyond what the mother can provide when lugging a child around. i'm talking nurishment for a large brain that needs to be fed incessantly following birth.
i thought i made it clear that is was during the evolutionary stages that i was talking about... why we are how we are mostly comes from 10's to 100's to 100's of 1,000's of years ago, when natural selection dictated who survived.
and i don't get why women wouldn't want a child. life is all about reproduction, the persistance of one's DNA. but i guess if there are people out there who are willing to commit suicide, there must be people out there who don't want children.
me? i'm too selfish.
I guess what I want to know is haven't we continued to evolve?
So what evidence supports that it is STILL programmed in men the need to spread the seed?
i can't really say i understand what you are asking.
it seems to me that in order to propagate a species, the male is going to have to go and seek out a female. if that drive weren't there, the species would inevitably die out.
are you asking why that drive hasn't died out yet?
i think anyone who lost that drive would kinda be singled out by natural selection...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home