Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Andrew Usher

1
Main / Female sexual behavior
Jun 30, 2009, 05:54 PM
This is a restatement on a post on soc.men , called there 'The root of sexual tension'. In the interest of brevity I will confine myself to the main argument, and omit the many side statements in that post. I will first say that personal experience alone is not a good guide on this matter.

The male sex drive is fairly easily understood, yet the female's is rather mysterious. It is apparent to every man (I say man, because there are some women that apparently don't get it, such is the female inability to think properly) that men and women differ profoundly in this matter. Some aspects are so evident they need no stating; for example, one can not approach a stange woman in public and ask her for sex - a tactic that would work with a not inconsiderable portion of men. The difference is not simply that women have a weaker sex drive than men (for if it were so men with notably weak sex drives would resemble women); nor do women differ considerably in the physical pleasure of sex.

The most popular explanation of this difference is that women, to have sex, want to be (or feel) 'in love'; a second is that women seek a good provider before desiring sex (this is not inconsistent with the first, given female emotions). Intelligent men will further recognise that those have evolutionary explanations behind them that I need not repeat.

That is fairly good job of explaining it, I think. For instance, the instinctual nature of the second is why women have a greater willingness to have sex with wealthy, powerful, or famous men, even in the absence of commitment and where a rational mind would say such commitment is hardly likely. And here it is necessary to point out the nature of the problem: the question is not why people agree to have sex, but why they do not, and I think it an essential difference that when men refuse sex, they normally have conscious reasons for doing so (regardless of soundness), while when women do, their reaction is ultimately based on unconscious impulses, no matter what rationalisation she might come up with.

And yet, these common explanations miss many familiar aspects of women's behavior. No theory, naturally, can explain what an individual woman will do in an individual situation, yet that does not make theories useless, for it is possible with a very high degree of certainty to predict what she will not do, and the effects of social changes on sexual business may be better evaluated. I should tell you how I came to my theory. I read a paragraph (I now know it to have been exaggerated, but the point I drew from it is valid) about sexual behavior at Antarctic bases. I immediately saw from it that women there entered into relationship that they would not in the ordinary world and wondered why. I considered that there might simply be 'nothing else to do', but on reflection one should see that there is little correlation between boredom and women's willingess to engage in sex (There is for men, however, a fact that should be appreciated by any man.). I put this fact away, as I often do, as unexplainable to possibly come back to it later. The fact that I did realise later is that women's decisions on this are subconscious, as I said above, and that the evolutionary motive for withholding sex can be most simply expressed as that of trying to obtain material benefit therefrom.

So, thus, I arrived at my theory, which includes the two above explanations and gives a further important refinement, which can be said in one sentence thus: 'The unwillingess of a women to have sex, where a man would be willing, is a function of her subconscious perception of the benefit to be had by withholding it.'. The merit of this is that it gives a reason for the observation that women are more willing to have sex or enter relationships in 'restricted' environments: not just Antarctic bases (the original inspiration), but in more common cases like high school and college, the military, women's prisons, etc. A further confirmation is that some married women will initiate adulterous relationships with men that would obviously be unsuitable were they single. The small (but famous) number of cases of teachers having sex with male students is to be explained partly by that last and partly by women not seeing the teenage boys as competitors to adult men, thus not feeling any benefits of withholding sex there. A commonality of all these cases (which may be thought, indeed, to be a re-statement of the principle) is that the women have a dependable income and therefore do not feel anxiety over getting one from a man.

An objection to the preceding that is immediately evident is that women with higher-paying jobs often have higher standards than women with lower-paying jobs, whereas one might derive that they should be financially secure and therefore less interested in a man's income. That would ignore another aspect of female psychology, though: that they tend to compare standards of living in a relative, rather than absolute, manner (Men do this too, to a lesser extent. It's part of status-seeking.), and that working outside the home for wages is evolutionarily unnatural, especially for women. For those reasons, and because work in the capitalist system is actually not dependable, they do not feel a dependable income in the same sense.

So, after that, I must conclude that I have made a significant contribution (which is original so far as I know) to the knowledge of female sexual behavior. An important question I ask myself is whether the guaranteed income, as proposed by me, would increase women's willingness to have sex. The above enables me to draw the probable conclusion that there will be an effect in that direction among women with ordinary incomes and below.
I do believe this an additional reason, though a small one, to support the program; it benefits men not only directly (by getting us more sex) but indirectly by reducing the power women have over us through sex.
2
Main / Apologia
May 26, 2009, 11:35 AM
I have posted this in the other thread, but I must duplicate it so that everyone will see it. I am sorry this is necessary, but it is forced upon me by Gonzman and the moderator. I should hope that some here can break the mental prison of authoritarianism and see the true facts.

He has made personal attacks on me in just about every post, and no one could fail to see it. While I endeavor to keep discussions as civil as possible; he makes them less than civil. And why is it that you show up only to post these warnings? People like Gonz are completely repugnant, and indeed the word 'asshole' was made to describe such people; they are not simply wrong, they are worse than that.

So you want to get rid of me? Lots of people don't like to listen to arguments for opposing positions; they feel threatened by them (if only subconsciously), as you and Gonz do by me. People want to form their mental fiefdoms that are not threatened by the incursion of contradictory ideas - willful ignorance indeed. You are a coward, or else just as contemptible as he is, for this action.

We are beset by lack of cooperation, and I have pointed out the only solution. I set up my wiki to try to start on something new that would help us all, but you prefer to whine in your comfortable illusions. We need to attract more men - thousands, hundreds of thousands, to our views, and we can't do it with this kind of polarisation, nor indeed with people like Gonz being any sort of public face.

As for myself, I remain devoted to free speech, to my personal dignity (as much as people like you try to destroy it), and to the belief that truth makes one free - and conversely, that closing one's mind is submission.

http://menswiki.wikidot.org
http://rationalwikiwiki.org/wiki/User:Fall_down

Peace, love, and freedom!
3
Main / Serious points
May 05, 2009, 06:33 PM
I have made the point that people disagreeing with me on circumcision, prostituion, and other things shouldn't be an obstacle to considering me part of the movemt.

The important issues we should all support, that define masculism, are common to us all. It's simply wrong to let minor issues divide us - what about abortion? I'm pretty sure that some of us are definitely pro-choice, others are anti-abortion, but that doesn't cause problems.

So what are we about? Look at http://menswiki.wikidot.com/masculism - the list of 14 points in that article (not written by me) is probably a good start. Here they are:

1. Child custody strongly favoring mothers
2. Men incarcerated for inability to pay unrealistic support payments
3. Children aborted or given up for adoption without fathers' consent
4. Men risking their lives in military service
5. Men taking high-risk employment but receiving no special honor for doing so
6. Men charged in domestic violence cases even when they are the victims
7. Men charged in rape and sexual harassment cases with no evidence beyond the plaintiff's claim, where the mere accusation frequently destroys a man's life
8. Research and free speech repressed unless pro-feminist
9. Men fired from their jobs for expressing anti-feminist views in the workplace
10. Hate crimes against men
11. Relative lack of funding for men's health
12. Entitlement programs for women only
13. Special government agencies for women's affairs, and no corresponding agencies for men's affairs
14. Feminist ideology being taught in public universities, where it is misleadingly labeled "Women's Studies".

I could agree with all of these as issues (except #4 which doesn't seem to state an issue), and I hope all of you could, too.

Let me state them as possible solutions:

1. Stop discrimination against fathers in custody decisions
2. More lenient child support enforcement
3. Allow fathers to take legal responsibility for their children if the mothers won't
4. Recognise men's special sacrifice in military service
5. Recognise that high-risk jobs deserve higher rewards
6. Fairness in domestic-violence law; end automatic arrests of men
7. Recognise the harm done by false sexual allegations; try to establish balance
8. End censorship of pro-male research and advocacy
9. Establish that employers have no liability for employees' personal views
10. Recognise crimes against men equal to crimes against women
11. End the perpetual whining about women's health; recognise that our health system should serve men equally well
12. Establish equality in entitlement programs
13. Establish equality in government services
14. Stop teaching feminist propaganda in public schools; provide balancing male perspectives

Some of these are deliberately somewhat vague as there are many ways to accomplish them and I don't want to start an argument. Any way would be better than nothing, however.
4
Main / New thoughts on 'Octomom'
May 03, 2009, 03:23 PM
Since this does touch somehow on men's issues, I thought I should reference it here.

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/6fa9292340ad7d64#

-------- QUOTED POST

We discussed this in one thread before, but I'd like to
present my own thoughts on the matter. We pretty much
agree that the mother is the exemplar of irresponsibility
in breeding.

But what about the father, the sperm donor? What's his
excuse? He surely knew what was going on, did he not?
Funny that he can't be pursued for support, even though
he could no doubt pay something. Men that get women
pregnant the natural way can be held liable - even when
it's clearly unfair - where men that get women pregnant
through artificial means can't be. That strengthens my
belief that child support payments are another way to
punish men for having sex. I say this man is _more_
irresponsible than he that has promiscuous unprotected
sex and won't support any resulting children, as he at
least should have known that he was creating a public
liability while the promiscuous man just wants to get
laid.

And of course the medical system is hugely irresponsible
for allowing this to happen. Given her life situation
_and_ her psychological state, she should not have been
allowed IVF even once. Yes, I know some have argued that
she should be treated no differently than someone having
14 children naturally, but I differ. There are good
reasons we do not attempt to control natural breeding, as
it takes us places we shouldn't go; there ate equally good
reasons we should control artificial means of fertility.
I believe in the last thread that Society argued that
artificial means should simply be outlawed entirely [1],
and think I would have to agree - it would save us from
a lot of problematic issues [2].

Now I argued the last time that her children should be
taken from her. A reason for this that I haven't mentioned
is to make an example of her, as I fear other women will,
as she did, think that it's OK to try for an irresponsible
number of children in a short time and that one might get
lots of money from this. She can't care for all the kids
herself [3] anyway, so taking them away doesn't seem that
far out of line, when you add that to all the other reasons.

Andrew Usher

[1] To me, 'artificial means' includes fertility-enhancing
drugs even without any other intervention, even though the
Church says this is technically permissible. Another good
justification for this is that such drugs allow the
possibility of high multiple births, like what she had.

[2] Including debates over eugenics, which I do not think
can be resolved satisfactorily.

[3] One might ask whether this applies to any woman
employing a nanny. While we can't bar such women from
having children naturally, I think there _is_ a good
cases for barring adoption to any family that will. It
would stop certain celebrities from collecting children
as if they were status symbols, at least.

--------

I can't find the older thread I talk about in that post.
5
Main / The truth about circumcision
Apr 30, 2009, 08:03 PM
Male circumcision is one the most performed surgeries (if one may even call it that) in the world and in the United States. It is also likely the most uncomplicated of all surgeries, and thus has the best cost-benefit ratio of any non-lifesaving surgery.

While unsupported claims and anecdotes by anti-circ groups suggest otherwise, the evidence in favor of circumcision is truly comprehensive. On the other side, there is no evidence against it - no negative condition more common in the circumcised. There is no need to turn to biased sources, the Wikipedia article on the practice ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision ) is sufficient, if read carefully and without prejudice. The truth is too familiar to all thinking men to need repeating here.

Nor is there any reason to believe the circumcision impairs sexual pleasure; all evidence shows that the opposite is true, if anything. (This is true equally of the removal of the clitoral hood in women; i.e. circumcision.) Nor is there any reason to believe that the hygienic benefits are unimportant or can be matched by the uncut cleaning his penis regularly. Nor is it defensible that the intact penis is more aesthetically appealing; if people (other than gay men) show any preference, it is very likely to be the other way.

The objection that circumcision is painful is not only entirely obviated by the use of local anaesthesia (there is no reason circumcision needs ever to be performed without anaesthesia or with general anaesthesia), but is a ridiculous objection anyway. It is nothing more than irrational fear of pain, or cowardice. Pain for the sake of pain is bad, yes, but circumcision is far more than that. Nor it it just, or even mainly, a cosmetic procedure.

I can say without a doubt that all men ought to be circumcised.
6
Main / Sarah Palin stuff
Apr 23, 2009, 02:38 PM
Well it seems by recent threads that some people here are just in love with Sarah - she couldn't possibly have anything to do with the Bristol/Levi split, right? All other women are bad but she's a saint, I guess.

I can't believe anyone thinks she can be a serious political candidate. It's not just liberal bias that realises she makes Bush look like a genius. Besides, she's female. I know I would have voted for McCain if he'd had any other VP candidate, and I suspect a lot of other Americans would, too.
7
Main / Men's wiki
Feb 11, 2009, 06:56 AM
I started a new wiki, and copied all the stuff I already had:

http://menswiki.wikidot.com/ .

This is the best I can do. I know I would like to use the Wikipedia
interface (mediawiki), as that's what I and everyone else that uses
wikis is familiar with, and what all important wikis run on, but I'm
afraid that I can't get any service that uses that and is otherwise
suitable.

To navigate, for now, use the 'list all pages' feature. If there gets
to be too many pages I'll come up with something else. If you
feel that it's too centered on my ideas and not on real men's
issues - well, it's a wiki, you can add anything you want.

So, please start using it, even if you only have small things to
contribute. You need to sign up for a Wikidot account first, and
since
they allow but one account per e-mail address, you might want to
creating a new e-mail account just for this. Then request an account
using the provided form (you don't need to add a comment, I'll accept
all requests) - I'll get to it as soon as possible.

Once you have joined, please create a user page
named 'user:USERNAME',
containing an e-mail address (the one you want to be contacted at)
and
whatever else you want. Then start editing; as stated above, any
edits
are welcome, if I object I might revert them and then comment on
talk.

Any further questions should be posted right here or to soc.men
under a similar subject line.

Andrew Usher