Dynasty
Space Core
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2004
- Messages
- 4,976
- Reaction score
- 17
Grab a drink and sit back, this is for the tl : dr lovers.
Ever had one of those fights over maps or which road to take with a girlfriend of way-back-when, whats-her-name or a current lady figure making you look like more of a catch right now?
Apologies for the rather cheesy-insurance-type-intro where those guys walk in from odd angles across the screen on TV these days, ignore it if you wish.
Anyway, drifting again. I'm bringing this up because I'm personally getting sick of the whole 'battle of the sexes' thing, especially when it comes to women's opinions; because they dont seem to realise that they will become superior at some point through the natural time of evolution.
I've just read a news article about % differences between female workers and men in CEO positions etc, which has lead me to share my thoughts on the differences between men and women in today's society.
Let me explain either way.
To link back to the evolution angle; what's happening right now is important ONLY in the context of our continuing evolution as a species.
So when a woman complains about you taking the wrong turn when it clearly shows on the map we should be going the other way, and we men acknowledge our mistake, we should rip the map away from her and refuse to let her even look at any map in the future.
This should apply to all women; stay the ***k away from maps. The future of the species depends upon it.
Why? Because when men say they wish a woman could read a map properly, they disregard the primary importance of utility in human relationships.
Man's ability to read maps, to navigate, makes us useful. So we should be discouraging any woman from even looking at a map.
(Woman's so-called 'inferior' sense of direction is for another debate, so lets not dwell on that; its just an example.)
You see, as throughout history, the female will respond to a male who displays the most utility. By honing those skills that make you useful as a man, you stave off your inevitable obsolescence.
Now that doesnt mean you should sit at home honing your ability to program a DVD player. Driving manual, lifting heavy things and air guitar are among others.
Women may be laughing at those things, but I say go ahead a chuckle. Until women evolve the ability to move objects telapathically, and they certainly will, physical strength will remain a primary utility.
Then there's sex of course, just to dangerously swerve away from the previous angle. Are men necessary these days? You sure?
A couple of years ago, if memory serves (forgive me if it's wrong), a group of scientists announced their intention to fertilise an egg without the use of sperm cells.
If you were paying attention in Biology at school, you'll know that every cell in the human body contains a copy of the genome pattern.
The only reason that sperm cells have all the fun is that up until now, they were the only ones with access.
Within most of our lifetimes here on this forum for example, artificial insemination will render sperm as useless as an assembly line worker in Detroit.
However, we must not forget that women also have sex, make love or however you wish to see it, because they enjoy it, and not just to procreate.
But I ask again; are men absolutely necessary?
Think of the structure of the female genetalia, without getting childish.
What is the most sensitive part of the vagina? It's....I hope you know this one guys....the clitoris, first discovered by Renaldus Columbus in 1559 (first he thought it was India).
The crown of the clitoris contains 8,000 nerve fibres, it's a far greater concentration than in any part of the male body, even our fingertips. It is the most efficient pleasure delivery system ever devised by nature.
So now ask yourself; why didnt the clitoris end up inside the vagina? So that sex would be naturally, compellingly and constantly pleasurable for a woman?
One could argue that in primitive times, women died of childbirth, so for intercourse to be too pleasurable wouldn't make sense from a Darwinian standpoint. Feel free to stick with your own explanation of course, be it scientific fact or something you scribbled in a book one day.
What does that tell us though? That evolution is looking out for women?
Maybe. Or maybe it tells us that for women, intercourse and sexual fulfillment were never intended to intersect.
New technology just makes it official; future generations of women will evolve clitori (clitorati?) that are larger, longer and even more sensitive.
And a woman's ability as well as her desire to self stimulate will increase exponentially, as intercourse becomes robbed of its procreative utility.
Anyone confused or frightened should be. The species isnt static, we're in a constant state of flux. 2 genders has been the default setting for one reason, and one reason only; so far its been the only way to propagate the race.
So where does this lead us? Equality? Equality, what is that? Is that a principle of nature? We all sit around reading maps together? No, of course not.
Natural selection. Now that my friends is a principle of nature; selection, something has to lose. Something has to be defeated in order for something else to be selected. So, what does this mean?
It means that in 10 or 15 generations from now, men will be reduced to servitude;
Technology and evolution will have combined to exclude sperm from procreation, and men's final destiny will be to lift couches and wait for that day when telepathy overcomes gravity, and our gender's last remaining utility is lost forever.
Ever had one of those fights over maps or which road to take with a girlfriend of way-back-when, whats-her-name or a current lady figure making you look like more of a catch right now?
Apologies for the rather cheesy-insurance-type-intro where those guys walk in from odd angles across the screen on TV these days, ignore it if you wish.
Anyway, drifting again. I'm bringing this up because I'm personally getting sick of the whole 'battle of the sexes' thing, especially when it comes to women's opinions; because they dont seem to realise that they will become superior at some point through the natural time of evolution.
I've just read a news article about % differences between female workers and men in CEO positions etc, which has lead me to share my thoughts on the differences between men and women in today's society.
Let me explain either way.
To link back to the evolution angle; what's happening right now is important ONLY in the context of our continuing evolution as a species.
So when a woman complains about you taking the wrong turn when it clearly shows on the map we should be going the other way, and we men acknowledge our mistake, we should rip the map away from her and refuse to let her even look at any map in the future.
This should apply to all women; stay the ***k away from maps. The future of the species depends upon it.
Why? Because when men say they wish a woman could read a map properly, they disregard the primary importance of utility in human relationships.
Man's ability to read maps, to navigate, makes us useful. So we should be discouraging any woman from even looking at a map.
(Woman's so-called 'inferior' sense of direction is for another debate, so lets not dwell on that; its just an example.)
You see, as throughout history, the female will respond to a male who displays the most utility. By honing those skills that make you useful as a man, you stave off your inevitable obsolescence.
Now that doesnt mean you should sit at home honing your ability to program a DVD player. Driving manual, lifting heavy things and air guitar are among others.
Women may be laughing at those things, but I say go ahead a chuckle. Until women evolve the ability to move objects telapathically, and they certainly will, physical strength will remain a primary utility.
Then there's sex of course, just to dangerously swerve away from the previous angle. Are men necessary these days? You sure?
A couple of years ago, if memory serves (forgive me if it's wrong), a group of scientists announced their intention to fertilise an egg without the use of sperm cells.
If you were paying attention in Biology at school, you'll know that every cell in the human body contains a copy of the genome pattern.
The only reason that sperm cells have all the fun is that up until now, they were the only ones with access.
Within most of our lifetimes here on this forum for example, artificial insemination will render sperm as useless as an assembly line worker in Detroit.
However, we must not forget that women also have sex, make love or however you wish to see it, because they enjoy it, and not just to procreate.
But I ask again; are men absolutely necessary?
Think of the structure of the female genetalia, without getting childish.
What is the most sensitive part of the vagina? It's....I hope you know this one guys....the clitoris, first discovered by Renaldus Columbus in 1559 (first he thought it was India).
The crown of the clitoris contains 8,000 nerve fibres, it's a far greater concentration than in any part of the male body, even our fingertips. It is the most efficient pleasure delivery system ever devised by nature.
So now ask yourself; why didnt the clitoris end up inside the vagina? So that sex would be naturally, compellingly and constantly pleasurable for a woman?
One could argue that in primitive times, women died of childbirth, so for intercourse to be too pleasurable wouldn't make sense from a Darwinian standpoint. Feel free to stick with your own explanation of course, be it scientific fact or something you scribbled in a book one day.
What does that tell us though? That evolution is looking out for women?
Maybe. Or maybe it tells us that for women, intercourse and sexual fulfillment were never intended to intersect.
New technology just makes it official; future generations of women will evolve clitori (clitorati?) that are larger, longer and even more sensitive.
And a woman's ability as well as her desire to self stimulate will increase exponentially, as intercourse becomes robbed of its procreative utility.
Anyone confused or frightened should be. The species isnt static, we're in a constant state of flux. 2 genders has been the default setting for one reason, and one reason only; so far its been the only way to propagate the race.
So where does this lead us? Equality? Equality, what is that? Is that a principle of nature? We all sit around reading maps together? No, of course not.
Natural selection. Now that my friends is a principle of nature; selection, something has to lose. Something has to be defeated in order for something else to be selected. So, what does this mean?
It means that in 10 or 15 generations from now, men will be reduced to servitude;
Technology and evolution will have combined to exclude sperm from procreation, and men's final destiny will be to lift couches and wait for that day when telepathy overcomes gravity, and our gender's last remaining utility is lost forever.
