mercurialbliss said:
Unless the tribes were close in proximiity, I think i'd put my money on the behemoth :smile:
It's not about losing millions of years in 4 decades or ignoring evolution, it's about embracing it and recognizing the impact of those decades on society at large. We call ourselves civilized for many good reasons: higher intelligence than our fur-wearing, club-toting predecessors ranking first. Evolution dictates that intelligence changes instincts over time. Unlike our ancestors, we have the ability to make better decisions about our instinctual behaviors. Any obstacles a person faces in a struggle for conquest is most likely a result of societal norms. All tribes formed their own societies which dictated human behavior to a lesser or greater extent. Fear of being ostracized from the tribe/society kept members in line (still does). You can't minimize the impact of environment; it's a by-product of evolution. Conquering is not about instinct in this day and age, it's about ego. And there's plenty to go around for both men and women. I've certainly experienced my share.
You haven't overstepped your bounds, Doc. I'm impressed with your sensitivity in addressing your opinions on this issue, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.
Thanks for your praise, I was sorry if I was bit rough the other time around. A gentlemen should always watch his manners.
Concerning the issue though, I see your point a bit clearer now. I agree wholeheartedly that Evolution is important not only along the lines of our biology, but as well as our mental abilities too. In this point then we are clearly in a different place than our forefathers. However, our bodies are not. Problem. Society therefore has rules and regulations to keep our bodies in check. The majority of those rules and regulations force men to continue to act like our forefathers to prove our worth. I still think this is relevant.
As for your issue of conquest. I concede on that. I think this was a misunderstanding of vocabulary. Conquest does by itself imply ego, other wise what would be the point. But if it is not Conquest what do we call it, because something of the nature exists. Third leg might have a very different view on this than me, and I in no means share all his views. However I found what he was saying earlier interesting becuase of one part only. And I still find it interesting. When I am sitting in a bar, and I see a hot girl. She sees me and in one way indicates I should move forward. What is that. Why is an obstacle based on my performance necessary to meet this girl. Now within the last 40 years or so, she has had more liberty in various societies to making her own move. But alas, I do not live in such a liberated area. So I have to go over. That by itself is enough to assume that the majority of mens lives are spent in the pursuit of the women they fancy. I know that is a huge statement, I just didn't feel like really fleshing it out, but you get my meaning. Do women have to do the same today, yes. I'm sure it is getting just as hard for you, obstacles and all, than it has always been for men. And maybe this current intersting social construct might even reverse one day, hard to believe but possible. However going back to my original point. I still have lots of work to do, to get laid. As do we all I assume, but do men have more or not? I think we got it worse.
Just my point of view. And thanks for the healthy argument M. It is always fun to jostle around a point. You never know what you might find under a rock you trip over.