Morley wrote: ↑Sun Oct 31, 2021 6:52 pm
Free Ranger wrote: ↑Sun Oct 31, 2021 5:42 pm
Yeah I guess I'm just not fully understanding the
intention of your question and how it relates to the topic of the thread. Definition number 2 states, ": a systematic or organized configuration : DESIGN...color scheme." So it sounds like you're asking me what is my philosophical designs, my system I am promoting?
I would say I have no design or scheme, just a perspective. I am engaging in a philosophical discussion. I began by asking a question
what if? And then presented some arguments for reflection and was interested in a discussion.
To be frank, asking me about my opinion about women in the context of the biological sciences and human sexuality throughout history, sounds like a gotcha question. In the current political climate I'm hesitant to play that, what I worry is a, political game. I'm just waiting for, "Did you hear that guys? See what he said about down syndrome people! And what he said about women! Insult, insult, and insult. This guy is a jerk!" Then the discussion derails into a Tit for Tat emotional insult match. I would prefer to avoid that because while I'm happy to flex my intellectual muscles, I'd much rather discuss the topic at hand. If I am mistaken in this then I digress. I think you can understand. I already have two people asking what appears to be, though I can't be certain, similar gotcha sounding questions. And being spoken of in the third person which
can, not saying it will or would, but
could potentially quickly evolve into an Us-versus-Him mentality.
I would much rather have a philosophical discussion and through two interlocutors engaging in a rational dialogue the "truth(s)" and "perspectives" can be put on the table, thought through, and someone may even change their mind in the process.
As for myself, I love to change my mind, I think I enjoy changing my mind more than even feeling right. LOL.
In the system (or reality) of biological determinism that I think you outlined:
- Joseph is fulfilling his role as the alpha ape that nature created
- presumably, some few, select, other men can also be alpha apes
- such men are destined to sow seed in the most fertile feminine soil available
- most other men would also like to become alpha apes
Where does that leave a woman's role?
If you don't want to answer, that's more than okay, but I don't see that anyone is trying to trap you. All anyone is asking you to do is to expand on your argument. Questions are not gotchas unless you don't have a rational answer to them, at which point even the simplest query becomes a gotcha. But maybe you're still fleshing out your theory.
I'm going to attempt to read between the lines and answer the question I think you are asking me. You have not answered my questions to get greater knowledge so I have to just guess. I think you're asking: what is the role of the
modern woman in the wake of third-wave feminism and the cultural advances caused by Christianity with this raw look at the sexes through the lens of biological evolution with it's seeming unfairness from a current cultural lens? Are you
advocating men acting like assholes? What about our mothers and daughters?
The idea that women have a certain
role they should play implies a modern moral judgment based on the last several decades of cultural advancements and moral constructs. What was the role of the Egyptian woman? The Greek woman? The Viking woman? In those eras, did high status males have access to multiple women, say a wife and access to concubines or prostitutes on the side which was considered normal? How did the women feel about that Morley? Were they morally outraged over it to the same degree that the modern woman would be? Your answers to these questions will help me proceed further.
I'm not going to promote or endorse the book Sex at Dawn because it's considered controversial but I think much of what that book covers is supported by the majority of the biological sciences. In that book they cover women's sexuality and attempt to argue that women have been more sexually "liberal" in ancient cultures. They point out that women can actually enjoy sex. They point out that in some cultures women enjoyed multiple lovers and women who had no problem with being with a man who had multiple other lovers. Outside of America in many other nations it's considered normal if not moral for the man to have a wife and a female lover on the side. I recently heard an atheist comedian talk about his father talking frankly about visiting a prostitute in front of his mother and it being no big deal, and prostitution being legal in that country. Try reading the book My Secret Garden
by Nancy Friday, and you might be surprised at just what women find arousing.
The point is, I'm not willing to speak for all women in all cultures throughout all time on what their role should be in their reaction to the science I'm covering.
In your summary you mentioned most males wanting to become alphas. I'm not sure most men would want to become an alpha male. But I do think that throughout history most men have admired and respected Alpha Males. I think that the gods that men have produced throughout history were often projections of the alpha male. See the book
Alpha God for details. In today's current political culture the alpha male is the equivalent of the "devil." So not sure most men today want to be "alpha males." At least they would not admit it.
Do you Morley want to be an alpha male? If you could have sexual access to multiple females and have status and power, would you want that? Do you think it is "morally wrong" to want that? Why? By what "moral standard" are you judging those natural urges? Again, I addressed my initial question in this thread to agnostics and atheists.
I think most men go to the movies and watch Alpha Males like James Bond or Arnold Schwarzenegger kick ass and enjoy vicariously living through their exploits and conquests. Most men watch porn which is an artificial way of gaining access to multiple women which is usually reserved for Alpha Males and other high-status males. Do you watch porn Morley? If you do not watch porn now, have you ever? If you do, or did, what do you think is the biological reason for that: what is a driving your behavior? No judgement by the way no matter how you respond.
I heard a statistic once that 10 to 20% of men are having sex with 90% of the females. I have not verified that stat myself. But you can Google and find out that today a large increasing number of men are not having sex. I think most men (or at least many) today like to feel morally superior to alpha males and the more sexually active high-status males, and judge them through the moral constructs of Christianity or Wokeism, etc. But if aliens attacked us tomorrow their attitude might change. I think they would want alpha male leaders protecting the earth from invasion. Everybody wants Alpha Males or other high-status men in the dominance hierarchy leading their country's military. But we can try removing such male types from the military and see what happens in the future when another country's military sees this utter decline in strength.
Again, I'm coming at this from an atheistic science-based perspective. I'm seeking to leave aside "Christian morality" during the philosophical discussion. I'm not promoting or endorsing a scheme but discussing
reality and how our cultural concepts and constructs might determine how we view Joseph Smith and
judge him.
Not sure I agree with your summary in your bullet points as an accurate summary of my thoughts. As I think your wording makes it sound like I'm advocating and saying this is what
should happen. Rather than me saying this
is what it is.. I don't
like that some male lions will kill the cubs of a female lion that were seeded by another male. I may even look away if I saw it happening. But that doesn't change the nature of
that reality. I used to be morally outraged at Joseph Smith, as I mentioned to another person on this thread. I have since developed a more objective science-based perspective.
I
do agree with your statement, "Joseph [was] fulfilling his role as the alpha ape that nature created." Back to your question, I'm going to take a guess and presume that you are asking for the woman's role in biological science? You refuse to answer
my questions which I find interesting, so I will go ahead and answer yours for the sake of the lurkers interested in my response. I think the "role" of women from the perspective of biological science is the same as all female ape species. You would not answer my question but I am going to presume you believe that humans are apes and you believe in evolution. So
that right there should be sufficient to answer your question. But I will further elaborate.
As far as I can tell based on my reading of the science of sex and my own personal experience, most women want to have sex with the alpha males of the world, or at least high-status males with territory/resources, status and power/strength. It's the reason the jocks got the girls in high school. I went through a phase myself of being lower social status in the social dominance hierarchy of high school due to shyness and introversion, but then by my sophomore year I began to lift weights and box with my friends and became muscular and more social and raised my status. During this process I noticed that the young women found me more attractive as I became more "alpha" or high-status so to speak. The "sensitive" side of myself, largely influenced by Christian morality growing up LDS, may have preferred that I did not have to develop this more egoic masculine exterior; but I've also realized that the most fully alive I have felt in my life is when I was living out my natural masculinity. I slowly realized that that passive persona instilled in me from childhood learning about the flannel board Jesus, was not really me, but I actually come from Viking ancestry; and once I through off the emasculating "moral" shackles of being "mr. nice guy" from my conditioning and my life improved: I made more money becoming a better provider of loved ones, became stronger and more powerful making me a better protector of loved ones. I made better friends, and became more attractive to women. I did not make the rules of life.
As I understand it the biological "role" of a woman is to survive and reproduce. She is most attracted to a man who is most likely to give her a child with genes that will most likely cause their child to survive and flourish. So here is the thing, according to the top biological scientists who study sex and mating, most women have an unconscious biologically driven strategy of being promiscuous and seeking out the alpha male or high-status male who she sleeps with in secret when she is ovulating and then going back to her low status (beta male) boyfriend or husband who will protect and provide for her. So you tell me, what is the role of women biologically based on this data?
Am I saying that alpha males can't be monogamous and women can't ignore their biological programming and be monogamous. Of course not. Christian morality led to these cultural constructs, creating societal shaming mechanisms that keeps most people in line. And I'm certainly not advocating cheating in the current culture where it can do great damage to the nuclear family. Yet I am noticing a lot of movies and TV being put out by Hollywood lately that advocates for women cheating on their husband without guilt and leaving their children behind to to be raised by nannies and caregivers to instead seek after careers and in the process actually vilifying the role of a stay-at-home mom. I'm not judging this new "moral" contruct from some superior moral construct; but it further begs the question, what is the real
role of women? The Viking role for women? A traditional Mormon role? An Egyptian role? The caveman times role?
The fact is, the most attractive women are choosing to have sex with a select few higher status men. It's why the select few men have sex with multiple women and the women tolerate it because they
prefer to be with the high-status man than with the lower status men. It's why we see such behavior in athletes and the wives of these athletes going along with it; and rockstars and politicians and movie stars, etc. We may not like it and wish that the "nice guys" had access to the most attractive women but
it is what it is. So I ask you, in this context of the facts, what
is the role of women?
When one removes their puritanical cultural lenses and one goes back 5,000 years ago or more, one finds that women likely had a different attitude about sex and their
role as a woman. I think I women five to ten thousand years ago would wonder what all the fuss is about among those who experience moral outrage at Joseph Smith.
I watched a national geographic documentary and the women spoke of enjoying the unconventional sex practices of the tribe, where in one case a woman enjoyed having sex with multiple men at the same time. She lamented the fact that when the Christian missionaries came everyone started to feel ashamed and they stopped the practice. Did the wives of Joseph Smith who were having sex with more than one spouse enjoy that? Why were some women actually attracted to the new system of plural marriage?
Are we looking at things through the lens of women as expected symbolic representations of the Virgin Mary, pure and holy, and Joseph Smith as a rabid satyr defiling their purity? Are we as atheists and agnostics maintaining our former Christian moralizing, in doing so?
Did any of the women voluntarily want to the live practice of polygamy and did any of them enjoy it? And did perhaps Joseph Smith himself eventually start to question the practice towards the end of his life?
. 
