Mika Brzezinski hates men

[Anti Federalist]

Aren't IUDs abortificants?

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrauterine_device

[Brian4Liberty]

Not to derail the thread, but somewhat related story in that no matter what a Republican says, Mika will probably find a way to demonize them...

Even agreeing with feminists makes them angry, if you're a conservative

[thoughtomator]

Women are generally not 'that way' for many reasons, but plenty of women really enjoy sex and having multiple sex partners - how does your biological imperative explain that??

The biological imperative doesn't prevent pleasure-seeking.

The difference is that sexual behavior driven by biology rather than pleasure seeking is inherently productive (the production of children, specifically), whereas sexual behavior driven by pleasure seeking is a non-productive leisure activity.

[Ronin Truth]

"Marriage is like a deck of cards. In the beginning, all you need are two hearts and a diamond. By the end, you’ll wish you had a club and a spade."

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I always thought Lucille Ball was pretty hot.

[dannno]

The biological imperative doesn't prevent pleasure-seeking.

The difference is that sexual behavior driven by biology rather than pleasure seeking is inherently productive (the production of children, specifically), whereas sexual behavior driven by pleasure seeking is a non-productive leisure activity.

Ya, see that is where our misunderstanding is coming in. I don't think having kids is always productive, *even from a biological sense (see * below for explanation) and I think sex is always productive since it is calming to the nerves and increases the health and wellbeing of the individual. I think there is more to the biological imperative to having sex than having kids, even though those biological imperatives are no doubt driven by the ultimate biological imperative of having kids - our bodies drive our sex drive in many ways, and I think to deny the sex drive for an extended period can be biologically destructive to the individual...

We know that doing so can cause cancer, which implies that some sort of toxicity occurs when a healthy male denies their sexual drive. I believe that it can also cause psychological problems, denying sex to someone with a healthy sex drive is toxic to our psychology and spirituality. It drives depression, obsession, jealousy and many other negative feelings. I think it is biologically imperative for mental, physical and spiritual well-being - which is all tied into being biologically imperative for having kids....the stronger the sex drive the more destructive, which is why some people can avoid sex and still be relatively ok. They have diminished sex drives compared to others, so denying the drive causes less problems. But honestly, I'd rather have a strong sex drive because the fulfillment makes it worth having. Sort of like how eating would be less enjoyable if there was no hunger mechanism.

*Why it is not always biologically productive to have kids: For example, a girl who has a kid when she is 16 or 18 and the partner doesn't want to help raise them - they will have a hard time finding a longterm partner and will have to scrap to get by during their most fertile years and avoid having more children since they are difficult for her to support on her own and it is more difficult to find somebody to support them. It is very possible she would have been better off avoiding having kids until she met a partner who could support multiple children, thus they can have more children and be more biologically productive.

[William Tell]

*Why it is not always biologically productive to have kids: For example, a girl who has a kid when she is 16 or 18 and the partner doesn't want to help raise them - they will have a hard time finding a longterm partner and will have to scrap to get by during their most fertile years and avoid having more children since they are difficult for her to support on her own and it is more difficult to find somebody to support them. It is very possible she would have been better off avoiding having kids until she met a partner who could support multiple children, thus they can have more children and be more biologically productive.

Sounds like a case for abstinence until life commitment AKA marriage to me.

[otherone]

Nature itself imposed that double standard in the very makeup of our beings. Men are hardwired to seek as many sexual partners as possible because it promotes genetic survival. Women have no such excuse; biologically they get zero benefit from having more than one partner at a time.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...like-a-caveman

[dannno]

Sounds like a case for abstinence until life commitment AKA marriage to me.

No, it's only a case for waiting to have children until a life commitment, which does amount to having sex responsibly. There is plenty of very highly effective birth control, and I'm also pro-choice - not a huge fan of abortion, but as long as it is very early in the pregnancy I don't think it is a big deal.

[Anti Federalist]

I always thought Lucille Ball was pretty hot.

I could see that.

[green73]

I could see that.

Not bad for a soulless ginger.

[amy31416]

I get what she's saying. Men discard women like used tissue paper. With that said women will play a different card and exploit men for every last resource if it is advantageous for them.

I think it's usually tragic how human beings treat each other. Male/female/whatever.

[Brian4Liberty]

I think it's usually tragic how human beings treat each other. Male/female/whatever.

Yep. People are people. No gender has a monopoly on cheating or putting notches on their lipstick cases (or is that bedposts?).

[amy31416]

Yep. People are people. No gender has a monopoly on cheating or putting notches on their lipstick cases (or is that bedposts?).

I have no idea. I think that's a good thing about me, despite my flaws.

[Rudeman]

Anyone that starts with most women/men _____. Really shouldn't, unless you have a very active life (enough to know most women/men) then you can't really speak for them. All you can speak for is your own experiences or urges, not mine or others.

I mean I thought libertarians were supposed to view people as individuals, what's up with trying to bunch people into groups/stereotypes?

[thoughtomator]

Anyone that starts with most women/men _____. Really shouldn't, unless you have a very active life (enough to know most women/men) then you can't really speak for them. All you can speak for is your own experiences or urges, not mine or others.

I mean I thought libertarians were supposed to view people as individuals, what's up with trying to bunch people into groups/stereotypes?

Believing people have individual rights and ought to be treated equally under the law does not imply that one should be deliberately stupid about people in general behaving in accord with archetypes.

[Rudeman]

Believing people have individual rights and ought to be treated equally under the law does not imply that one should be deliberately stupid about people in general behaving in accord with archetypes.

Except you have no idea how most people would behave in the mentioned scenarios. All you can do is presume based on the knowledge you have (which can be wrong). I'll just say the assumptions made in this thread do not apply to me and a lot of people I know, so based on my experiences I could claim the alternative but I don't pretend to know other people's wants and desires.


If you do have the knowledge, then good for you. I'm sure you can make a lot of money off of it.

[thoughtomator]

Except you have no idea... All you can do is presume... I'll just say the assumptions made in this thread do not apply

I presume the irony of your comment is completely lost on you and you alone.

I have plenty of idea, thank you. The people I have encountered in my life are not magically all wild deviations from the average.

[Rudeman]

So "most people I know" is more accurate than "most people". I don't know you or the people you know and you don't know me or the people I know. All you can speak for is yourself and your experiences. Again you don't know what the average is. Your average may be a lot more different than my average, especially seeing that we live on opposite sides of the country.

[thoughtomator]

So "most people I know" is more accurate than "most people".

Yes, but only the most pedantic nitpicker would actually make that distinction, and would achieve nothing by doing so other than to make himself out to be a most pedantic nitpicker.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I was sure this woman was a congresswoman and not an entertainer. Oh well; she probably just needs a bigger johnson.

[dannno]

I was sure this woman was a congresswoman and not an entertainer. Oh well; she probably just needs a bigger johnson.

lol, do you know who her father is? And she is an anchor on Morning Joe, if anybody didn't know, so entertainer is an accurate description.

[dannno]

//

[Occam's Banana]

she probably just needs a bigger johnson.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

lol, do you know who her father is?

Zbignew? (Spelling? Whatever the fuq.)

That's a blast from the past.

[pessimist]

Women are generally not 'that way' for many reasons, but plenty of women really enjoy sex and having multiple sex partners - how does your biological imperative explain that??

This. And I would even argue that men aren't even more promiscuous than women. The perception that they are is due largely to social conditioning: women are sluts; men are "just being men". Also, there are psychological ones- men, being the 'hunters' that they are, tend to have bigger egos and like to boast of their "victories".

Yes, there are biological reasons why most women don't need to have sex as much as men and I understand that it is related to the biological imperative - but many women still have strong sexual desire and in many cases the reason they hold back is societal constraints.

Do you really think they "hold back" though?

Men treat women who enjoy sex and wear it on their sleave like $#@!, even though most men enjoy sex and wear it on their sleave.

Women treat wanton women like garbage too. In fact, they can be the most vicious toward them.

Anyway- I completely reject the idea that men are actually more promiscuous. In fact, a study from a few years ago: http://www.asanet.org/images/journal...SPQFeature.pdf made a claim many probably never heard before.

I know it will likely be dismissed here due to the title, but buried in that study he discovered that men with higher IQs tended to be monogamous and faithful, while there was NO DIFFERENCE between women with higher IQs and those with average to low ones.

I found that interesting.

[Ronin Truth]

Mika seems pretty fond of her Daddy.

HINT:

[Athan]

Most women her age hate men.

OH SNAP

[Philhelm]

Most women her age hate men.

That's because when a women no longer has much sexual value, the men their age and older will move on to younger women who are more concerned with status, money, Alpha traits, etc.

[dannno]

Mika seems pretty fond of her Daddy.

HINT:

Damn, I'm too young for her then.