Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: "What shall we do now?" (re. the UCSB shootings) [View all]Laelth
(32,017 posts)59. My response to XemaSab (above).
Her post was hidden, so I decided to post my response to her here, as follows:
Hello XemaSab,
I can't reply to your post because it was hidden. Because I respect your opinion, and because I think you deserve a response, I decided to respond via DU-mail. Be advised that it was not I who alerted on your post.
This is what you wrote (the key part, anyway):
Yeah, those stupid whores are driven by their lady parts to rut with assholes, amirite?
That's not really fair, is it?
I never called women stupid, nor did I call them whores. Quite the contrary, I think it makes good, biological sense for women to choose mates based upon instinctual cues (pheromones, etc.). That's how instincts help women choose compatible DNA that will produce healthy, strong children. This dynamic does, however, put women in a bit of a bind, and I am sympathetic to womens' plight on this issue. Instincts say "choose a high-testosterone male," while the rational brain says, "choose a good provider, a loving partner, a stable, sane, and civilized man." These two messages are in conflict because high-testosterone males often do not make good mates (as defined by the rational brain).
So, if women are driven to "rut" (your word) with assholes, it's because of their their instinctual brains, and not their lady parts. In addition, I have said all along that most of us (as we get older and wiser) tend to make better, more rational decisions in our "partnering" choices (the choice of whom we wish to spend our time with), but there's a good argument that says we should listen to our instincts in our "mating" choices (the choice of whom we wish to create children with).
For what that's worth.
I can't reply to your post because it was hidden. Because I respect your opinion, and because I think you deserve a response, I decided to respond via DU-mail. Be advised that it was not I who alerted on your post.
This is what you wrote (the key part, anyway):
Yeah, those stupid whores are driven by their lady parts to rut with assholes, amirite?
That's not really fair, is it?
I never called women stupid, nor did I call them whores. Quite the contrary, I think it makes good, biological sense for women to choose mates based upon instinctual cues (pheromones, etc.). That's how instincts help women choose compatible DNA that will produce healthy, strong children. This dynamic does, however, put women in a bit of a bind, and I am sympathetic to womens' plight on this issue. Instincts say "choose a high-testosterone male," while the rational brain says, "choose a good provider, a loving partner, a stable, sane, and civilized man." These two messages are in conflict because high-testosterone males often do not make good mates (as defined by the rational brain).
So, if women are driven to "rut" (your word) with assholes, it's because of their their instinctual brains, and not their lady parts. In addition, I have said all along that most of us (as we get older and wiser) tend to make better, more rational decisions in our "partnering" choices (the choice of whom we wish to spend our time with), but there's a good argument that says we should listen to our instincts in our "mating" choices (the choice of whom we wish to create children with).
For what that's worth.
-Laelth
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
69 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
You are trying to conflate war and the character's personal problems
muriel_volestrangler
May 2014
#34
If you taught rhetoric than I ask you to step back and look for a larger, overarching theme
KittyWampus
May 2014
#2
So the invention of bigger and better guns and war machines had nothing to do with it?
davidn3600
May 2014
#11
we have often talked about the backlash resulting from so much success of women over a small
seabeyond
May 2014
#15
We fight to amend the Second Amendment. The existence of guns prevents the very conversations
ancianita
May 2014
#45
that has nothing to do with love and desire. that has nothing to do with being fearful
seabeyond
May 2014
#56