Are Hookers _Really_ Inconsistant With Marriage?
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
alt.philosophy only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

alt.philosophy Profile…
 Up
Are Hookers _Really_ Inconsistant With Marriage?         


Author: Bret Cahill
Date: Jul 12, 2007 08:50

The task today is to help the senator from Louisiana look less like a
hypocrite.

Bret Cahill
5 Comments
Re: Are Hookers _Really_ Inconsistant With Marriage?         


Author: Immortalist
Date: Jul 12, 2007 09:15

On Jul 12, 8:50 am, Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote:
> The task today is to help the senator from Louisiana look less like a
> hypocrite.
>
> Bret Cahill

You might help him with this rap;

THE MADONNA-WHORE DICHOTOMY

Anticuckoldry technology could come in handy not just when a man has a
mate, but earlier, in

choosing her. If available females differ in their promiscuity, and if
the more promiscuous ones

tend to make less faithful wives, natural selection might incline men
to discriminate accordingly.

Promiscuous women would be welcome as short-term sex partners --
indeed, preferable, in

some ways, since they can be had with less effort. But they would make
poor wife material, a

dubious conduit for male parental investment.
Show full article (13.73Kb)
no comments
Re: Are Hookers _Really_ Inconsistant With Marriage?         


Author: Bret Cahill
Date: Jul 12, 2007 09:37

> scheduled interviews, was duped by Samoan girls who made a game of
> misleading her.

Stuff like that happens all the time to dumb anthropologists.

Bret Cahill
no comments
Re: Are Hookers _Really_ Inconsistant With Marriage?         


Author: Day Brown
Date: Jul 12, 2007 11:11

On Jul 12, 12:37 pm, Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote:
>> scheduled interviews, was duped by Samoan girls who made a game of
>> misleading her.
>
> Stuff like that happens all the time to dumb anthropologists.
Monogamy is still history. It was always the tool of the king to
prevent his warriors from fighting over the system that produced more
warriors. Might makes right.

But now, the brave heart, strong right arm, sword in hand... no longer
cuts it. Smith & Wesson guarantee equal rights for smart women. Note,
I did not include the stupid bimbos. They will still rely on men to
take care of them.

But the effect, over the past few generations, has been most obvious
in Islam. There, beginning almost 100 years ago now, smart girls got
enough education to read about how women in the West were treated, and
by hook or crook, got up and left to become educated in the West. They
never went back for Semetic husbands, but have added their mtDNA to
the Western pool. Even Ben Ladin's own sisters were living in the West
on 911.
Show full article (1.92Kb)
no comments
Re: Are Hookers _Really_ Inconsistant With Marriage?         


Author: Immortalist
Date: Jul 13, 2007 11:38

On Jul 12, 11:11 am, Day Brown hughes.net> wrote:
> On Jul 12, 12:37 pm, Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote:> > scheduled interviews, was duped by Samoan girls who made a game of
>>> misleading her.
>
>> Stuff like that happens all the time to dumb anthropologists.
>
> Monogamy is still history. It was always the tool of the king to
> prevent his warriors from fighting over the system that produced more
> warriors. Might makes right.
>
> But now, the brave heart, strong right arm, sword in hand... no longer
> cuts it. Smith & Wesson guarantee equal rights for smart women. Note,
> I did not include the stupid bimbos. They will still rely on men to
> take care of them.
>
> But the effect, over the past few generations, has been most obvious
> in Islam. There, beginning almost 100 years ago now, smart girls got
> enough education to read about how women in the West were treated, and
> by hook or crook, got up and left to become educated in the West. They
> never went back for Semetic husbands, but have added their mtDNA to ...
Show full article (15.21Kb)
no comments
Re: Are Hookers _Really_ Inconsistant With Marriage?         


Author: Day Brown
Date: Jul 14, 2007 18:44

Tacitus is one of the sources for the rebuttal of the charge of
wantonness by a Celt:"Well, we Celts consort in public with the best
of men, while you Roman wives do so in secret with the most vile."

Much has been made of the larger size of the male based on "might
makes right".
But as Mallory, for one, noted, the first domesticated horses were
only 137 cm at the withers.
And elsewhere "In Search of the Indo-Europeans" he reports that the
Cucuteni were "gracile", with remains that suggest the women weighed
in at about 100 lb. Which meant that on a horse, the warrior was too
heavy, yet, on foot, he could not catch a woman on horseback. ergo,
the "Amazons". One of which is on the cover of his book.

DNA suggests that Native Europeans evolved in villages of 150-300 over
the course of the last 10,000 years. In such small gene pools monogamy
leads to too much inbreeding. Monogamy didnt really get going til
large cities emerged with much larger gene pools and endemic STDs.
Show full article (1.30Kb)
no comments