The Challenge

Jesus Christ I wish I'd get a new response once in awhile. You know where they got the idea to ban cloning? From all the damn clones.

Time and again I get the same attacking argument-free responses, to virtually everything.

But the most verbose, homogeneous, and hateful are those from a particular group.

Women who are so accustomed to be worshiped for the perceived pleasurability of their various orifices, that they post advertisements of them in subtle and not so subtle ways.

Women who are quite obviously to me attempting to auction themselves off to the highest bidder or to secure the future of their thus acquired contracts.

Women for whom honesty is not an option because of the doublethink implicit in their vitriolic attack on what they perceive to be a lower class.

You see, I tell a woman she's trying to profit off of her breasts, and she thinks I'm calling her a whore.

Far from it. I respect whores. Whores are honest and direct and obey the will of the market. No, I see both whores and sluts as sacred almost, doubly so because of the society in which they grew. Whores are usually from poverty, which means the know the truth about society eve if they may not be able to articulate it or exploit it effectively.

And sluts are generous, or at least honest with themselves and unashamed to take what they want when they can get it regardless of social finger waggling. If nothing else, if a woman is a slut and that is her chief "problem" then she's caused more happiness than the average person. And in my view, all it takes to be a good person is causing more happiness than you destroy.

So no I'm not calling you a whore, you don't deserve such a compliment.

Let me run down the usual list of bullshit I get.

For my audacity I am called the follow, or the following claims are made about me. I'm going to answer each one, so that i can post this link as a response to the canned responses I regularly get. I wish I had thought of this approach before but a form letter just didn't seem needed. Looking back, it clearly was. I've spent hours of my life, maybe even days or weeks solid when added up, responding to the human intellectual equivalent of mayflies.

Homosexual: Besides being totally irrelevant, I'm straight. I can't offer proof of this, but then again nor do I feel the need to. I haven't been offended by attacks on my sexuality since 7th grade.

Male chauvinist: Actually I'm closer to a feminist. Men by and large are addled by constant testosterone overdose, and they are unquestionably the most violent gender, this in my view makes them weak. Although I do blame women for this generally in the modern world because of the constant preference for cavemen. It is a biological fact that speciation is a power that rests squarely in the hands of the females. Sexual selection is fueled by the chooser gender and by definition, that is the female of the species. No, if I were a male chauvinist I'd swallow the party line of innocent victim princess mommys that need to be protected and obeyed and sheltered and catered to for all time, and I would ask them to be responsible or accountable for their choices as a group, as men are clearly expected to be. I ask of them what is asked of me because I see them as AT LEAST equal.

Pitiful: Heh, I think you mean pitiable. Anyway, maybe. That's really not up to me. I have pain as much as the next human. to me pity is something reserved for a victim, so if you honestly pity me then it's not my fault anyway. I don't pity myself, I see my life thus far in many way as absurdly lucky, almost ideal in both what I have experienced and what I haven't.

Pathetic: Impossible to rationally counter, too subjective.

Ugly: Impossible to rationally counter, too subjective.

Fat: I'm 6'5" and I weigh 245. I ride my bike twice a day, weather permitting. you call.

Stupid: Not according to my most recent psych evaluation.

Narrow minded: Read my whole blog.

Hateful: Read my Whole blog.

Judgmental: Uhhh, yea, I'm a conscious human, I make judgments constantly. I balance them with being open minded. If people would actually try to argue these point maybe I'd have a different opinion, but calling me names isn't going to persuade me or anyone else. If that's even the point.

Rude: Yea, and so was bring up women's suffrage. Social convention matters to me about as much as a gram of navel lint.

Insane: That's a matter of numbers, and therefor depends on how you look at it. Sure I may be insane by today's standards but if I'm far enough ahead of my time, I'll be vindicated later.

Petty: In anything I'm a lofty minded narcissist. I see everyone else as being petty specially if they can't see past their own genitals.

Troll: I believe every word I say, I am not trying to get a rise out of anyone, I'd prefer universal agreement, but I wont pander to get it either. I don't care if I piss you off, one way or the other, at least not enough to do much about it.

Belittling: See Troll.

Insecure: I advocate polyamory, I post my real face and name online, I posted my psych evaluation. I think of myself as a modern Buddha. If anything I'm an ego maniac. I have one secret that I don't post because of its embarrassing nature, and that's all. I assure you it has nothing to do with these matters anyway.

Friendless: Ironically, As I write this I'm pressed for time due to a social function. I'll admit I don't have many friends, but since everyone is so fond of cliches, I'll repeat one, its not about quantity, its about quality. Besides my circle would be much larger if the Company hadn't set upon them like a pack of velociraptors.

Uneducated: In that I have no degree, sure. However you'll be hard pressed to find a subject of scientific importance that I cannot intelligently discuss. I may not be able to rattle off names and dates without Google's help, but I've got the concepts down. Besides, Bush graduated from Yale, nuff said.

Causeless: HA! Wow. Saving humanity from an Orwellian future isn't a worthwhile cause? I'm trying to show you the one tool which they most use to control you.

Which brings us to The Challenge for my detractors. My supports can do this easily.

If you can answer this question with any degree of insight, you'll have my respect.

The question is this: Why is it advantageous for any of the following, to suppress polyamory and/or support monogamy? Religion/Government/Commerce

You may choose one or all. The only rule is you must not use a self referencing defense. For example you may not say that religion supports monogamy because adultery is a sin, or that government supports monogamy because polygamy is illegal, or that commerce supports monogamy because it is profitable, you must tell me WHY these things are.

It must at least pretend logical rigor and objectivity.

Your move.

Internet tough guys and fighting like a man.

This is going to be so much fun. Here is my first exchange with a cyber thug of 2008. Enjoy :)
----------

joethepeacock1:50pm Aren't you adorable, with your whole schitck of how awful marriage is to the concept of love...

For the record, that "bitch" I was sitting with would probably crush your jaw and break your arm in a reverse-armbar before you had the chance to pull that pretend gun you want to shoot her with.

Internet tough guys like you crack me right up.

I have no idea who you are or what you're talking about given your inability to cite a source, and that, makes this whole exchange all the more entertaining.

Since I don't have the slightest clue who you are or what provoked this I'm going to treat you conceptually. You are now every chest thumping “Internet badass” that has ever tried to use verbal descriptions of violence to impress themselves or anyone else.

Ironic that you would call me exactly what you've shown yourself to be. My online presence has my real face and full name and to my understanding the Internet tough guy thing requires anonymity.

So anyway, after my jaw is crushed and my arm is broken etc. Would you then poop in your hand and toss it at me as well? :)

It amazes me how some people doubt we've descended from chimps given your kind of behavior.

I can only assume this is how you guys solve your problems irl, and so often in fact that your first instinct is to try it online as well. You chest thump, and stomp around, and the adults around you let you have your way like some sort of rampaging toddler too big to be put to bed.

I mean really... Do you seriously expect that to work on the Internet? Am I supposed to be cowed into submission on the basis of imaginary violence? What is the desired reaction here? Am I to cry and beg your forgiveness? Perhaps lock all my doors and peer out my windows in abject terror of the righteous thrashing I've apparently earned at the hands of what I can only assume is your girlfriend? Or perhaps I'm supposed to reconsider my whole world view based merely on an abstract threat and thank you for enlightening me?

I'll bet you weren't even thinking that far ahead, if indeed you were thinking at all. Of course what you really want is a response in kind. You want me to antler bash with you and send back a message along the lines of “I'Ll STMOP YOUR ASSS FAG!!!!” so you can feel like you've won some sort of contest.

Am I right?

I hope this response won't be too much of a disappointment, but being that I'm clearly as far in advance of you, and most likely your mate, intellectually, as you are claiming to be in advance of me pugilistically, it's the only kind you're likely to get.

You see, you've not pissed me off personally. In fact you've given me about 20 minutes of entertainment. That's how long it took me to stop laughing, and then post this response to my blog.

I'm not tough. Nor did I ever claim to be. You see, I'm an adult and I haven't had to use violence since the 7th grade. I find that people only use the body when someone's mind fails. I surround myself with mature and intelligent people, and I act accordingly, and so fighting isn't a big part of my day except in the verbal sense.

I don't mean role played imaginary wrestling matches where I get a reverse arm bar, (whatever the hell kind of spandex-clad redneck-ballet crap that is), like you clearly indulge in, I mean the real fight, the one that matters, the clash of ideas.

I wish you were aware of how silly you look, others soon will be.

Since you brought up firearms, I'm going to use this opportunity to speak about “fighting like a man” which is a phrase I can easily imagine your type using. What you and your ilk don't seem to understand is that the whole point of a fight is to win, and the whole point of a weapons is to insure that win.

A weapon is by definition an unfair advantage. If I felt that my life was in danger you wouldn't have a chance to respond if I had any control over the situation at all. Thats how a weapon, any weapon, works. Be it claw, spear, firearm, arrow, cunning, or intelligence. A tiger has stripes, and a lion is yellow so he can back-stab his prey.

Humans are predators and are thus designed to hunt, not defend against being hunted.

You don't use a weapon for an antler bashing ritual. This is not pistols and paces at dawn. Notice that even in real life antler bashing rituals, the males never try to impale their competitor. Your ignorance of the fundamental nature of competition is telling.

I'm proud of who I am and what I have to say, and if you and those like you took 30 seconds to consider it critically, rather than thumping your chest like a primate in heat, you might either come to agree with me or find a flaw I have missed, in which case at least one of us would learn something

From my perspective its obvious that you and your kind despise your life, are deeply insecure about yourselves generally and are angry at those like me for pointing out the naked emperor. You'd rather walk around looking like a total moron so long as everyone around you is scared to point it out.

Cheers. :)

Prostitution, and Taco Bell

A friend of mine inspired an explanation that I'd like to make public.

"I'm not ready to throw away romantic notions of a perfect companion."

Me either, I just know it can't be human. Humans can not act selflessly. It's like asking a wasp to be non-violent. It's a genetic impossibility. Selfish gene, breeds a selfish organism.

I want a mate that wants me happy first and foremost. We all do, as is evidenced by all the absurd claims of selfless love made in romantic comedies, shows, dramas, and songs, but if that were really the case, why would monogamy exist?

Because its a lie meant to assuage insecurity. They want you to think they're selfless for you, but if they really were they'd share you at times. From the male perspective an example is easy to find.

Picture this.

Couple in bed, guy wants sex, girl does not. Now normally the guy just has to jerk off or go without. I envision a world where the guy says, “Well, I'm going down to the love hotel, cool? (I love the Japanese) and the girl is like, “Right on just be quiet when you come back I gotta get up early.”

In the future his option instead of the hotel will be his sex bot.

Now before you think that's outlandish, here's a similar situation with a different animal need.

Same couple in bed, guy wants food, girl doesn't feel like cooking. Now the guy has to get food himself or go without. We live in a world where the guy's like, “Well, I'm going down to the Taco Bell, cool? (I love beef and potato burritos, no red sauce, grilled) and the girl is like, “Right on just be quiet when you come back I gotta get up early.”

Now don't tell me monogamy is about avoiding contagion, because eating out is just the same. Regulate it if you must, make it safe, sure, but saying prostitution should be illegal because it spreads disease is the same as saying eating out should be illegal because of e-coli and salmonella.

Now I am sure there are female equivalents. I won't speak to them because I'm not female.

But honestly, making it so you can only have sex with one person or you don't 'love' them is as stupid as saying you can only eat one person's cooking, and making a sandwich for yourself means you're a loser. Sex is hunger without the need for other life forms. Defending monogamy by saying you won't die from lack of sex, is like saying “Well a person can live on rice water and vitamins, so lets make all other kinds of food illegal.”

It's not about living, its about the enjoyment of life. It's about the freedom to choose what love is, and how to seek it. It's about Freedom. And no argument to my mind attacking freedom can stand in this context.

Miccola's Question

I was asked by a bright young girl, why I feel the way I do about relationships prior to sexual legality. The answer ended up being long winded and somewhat unique. So I've made it a post to share with the world.

Thank you Miccola.

“...why do you think this?“

The short answer would be observation and experience. But I know you want an answer with more substance.

The fact is I've written a book, a blog, and had many debates on the subject. So its hard to answer what I consider to be a huge and complex question with any degree of brevity. But I own you an attempt.

They can all be found from underlore.com

Our society tells women that the best thing about them is their 'beauty' or sex appeal. It tells them this with money, social order in the form of gender roles, and advertising primarily.

Young women, having no frame of reference, accept this because it's by and large the earliest thing they hear, even as infants for example, "Oooo she's so beautiful!". At this point it's innocent, but at some point it begins to take on a sexual connotation. Obviously this is going to begin on an individual level around puberty. So beautiful like a water fall starts to mean beautiful like a playboy model. All this at the same time as being told that a relationship is about 'love', which is not about, but paradoxically is related to, sex.

I say related to sex because if a 'relationship' were not about sex, if it were merely about companionship, similar interests, meaningful psychological connection, and all the other platonic traits ascribed, then why should the gender or the sexual orientation of the companion matter? Or said differently, how would it be different from a normal friendship? Obviously the difference is protestations of love and attraction. “You are so beautiful” “I love you so much” etc. but the obvious rule is you must say these things to someone you are willing to have sex with, now or in the future, or were willing to have sex with in the past, as expressed in elderly couples still having relationships well past sexual ability. That is the only real difference.

So, having established that every 'romantic' relationship, must be, by definition about sex, we can add in age and experience, and arrive at my initial claim; that a young attractive woman has almost no chance of developing what I would call a healthy understanding of what a relationship is.

A relationship is about sex, you have sexual value, it is illegal to openly pursue you for this reason, but people will desire to do so anyway since sexual development in America (thanks in part to our diet) occurs much earlier than the 18 year age limit. The consequences of this pursuit are monstrous if the 'goal' is reached, which as I've shown above, by definition, must be sexual in nature, or else its not a relationship, just a deep meaningful (and perfectly legal) friendship. And here's how I know your boyfriend is an idiot or a possessive liar. And where I get my feeling that relationships in general, especially for one who is young female and attractive, are a bad idea.

If he is willing to pursue you openly, and think that he's immune from prosecution because he's around your age, he's dangerously ignorant. If he's willing to risk being marked as a sex offender for life, and being raped in prison just for sex with a pretty girl, he's a moron. If he claims that sex is not a goal of his, then he is lying, and merely wishes to secure you for future sexual advances. This is unfair to you, because as a woman you are the chooser sex, and that choice, in order to be free, needs to be informed, and it can only be informed by exploring your options, and his action is designed expressly to limit those options to one, him. This is underhanded and not at all considerate of your life. It is also indicative of extreme insecurity. I've never understood why this behavior is lauded as a healthy gender norm for men.

Society is trying to turn you into a trophy. They encourage you to have relationships, when what a relationship really is in our society is a contract that no one should enter into.

When he expresses his care for you, ask him if he could feel this way about a person with whom he could never have sex, and have him explain why he must have you to himself, and listen for ownership ideas. Remember that true love is limitless, for example having another child doesn't mean you love your first one less. Granted there are different types of love, but thats a cop out because no matter what you call it, it has a definition, and if it's really a form of love, it has no limits. So if he speaks about love, and includes a limit, he's actually talking about lust.

The claims made here are in general, there will always be exceptions, but I'm talking about the majority, and the ideas, not the people.

I look forward to your reply.