*Feminism IS Population Control*

Post Reply New Topic

Bonobos were an obsession of mine in my teens. I read all of Jane Goodall's books. I wanted to be an anthropologist and study them.
My freshman year I wrote a paper on the differences between bonobos and common chimps and how humans would benefit from adopting a more bonobo approach to sex. Most anthropologists agree that we resemble the common chimp in terms of social structure. The person who formed the aspie quiz had an interesting theory. He said that aspies are more like bonobos. He also said we may be descendants of the Neanderthal and have a special kinship with wolves. Claire333, different species can impact each other socially and potentially genetically. It would make a funny story, what you and your husband joked about.

Did you ever see that movie with Patricia Arquette. She had excessive hair and lived with wolves. It was so funny. Gosh what was the name of the movie?

hahaha

*sigh*

Guess what Magnus? *We*(as a species) certainly Do have sex with children! While sex between adults and children is a taboo here in the West(not to mention being against the law), it is a common practice in MANY other cultures, both historic and modern.



NO, they wouldnt be screwing all of the men, just the alphas . We have developed cultural institutions like marriage and monogamy which create an incentive for people to control and channel their sexual impulses. But that DOES NOT mean that people dont violate such social norms covertly when they think they can get away with it.

Bonobos don't have sexual taboos but the common chimps do. They also break the taboos from time to time too. What's your point?

It's not a common practice for human adults to have sex with children, nor is bisexuality an integral part of our social structure. The societies that have engaged in this type of behavior like the Ancient Greeks lived more harmoniously with each other as I've said before. Bonobos don't engage in war because they manage their aggression through sex. Humans are aggressive and competitive which makes them more like the common chimp. This is very complex. You can't just take one example or exception and blow it all out of proportion. Look at the whole picture. Bonobos don't hunt either unlike humans have during the course of evolution. Common chimps hunt in groups.

I said BONOBOS have sex with all the males not just the alphas like the common chimps who are much more selective. Geez!
You quoted me from pandds chopped up version of what I said. Look at my posts if you want an accurate idea of what I really said.

I never insinuated that Bonobo's and Humans are exactly alike; but our sexual practices are quite similar.
My point is that so far biology trumps social norms and unless our biology is purposefully altered, it always WILL. Adults having sex with children is NOT unnatural! And bisexuality is neither unnatural nor uncommon; its just not the socially acceptable norm.

Most animals don't even have taboos. Wouldn't you say that taboos are created because of something that is in our genes?
Common chimps have sexual taboos. I agree that bonobos resemble us in many ways but unfortunately, we resemble the common chimp in more ways.

Not everyone can be beautiful.

To beat men, women must become men?

I hope the men that have these extreme opinions aren't wondering why they never get laid.

You're way off by a shot.

Feminism was about equal rights not women becoming men. This thread has derailed into how bad all forms of femenism are rather than what the topic was "suppose" to be about which was Feminism Is Population Control.

I can't say I'd take this topic as serious now. This topic has gotten more and more derogatory. I'm glad I'm learning something new everyday and that there are men out there who know better than this old notion of yours.

I doubt you'd ever get the point in why females wanted to vote and have equal opportunities if you weren't there or experienced it just as racism. Women have never fit into this stereotypical box of what a man thinks they should be.

Basically when I hear a guy bash women by using the old femenist method of "Not everyone can be beautiful" or that "Femenists are lesbians"...it really shows not only ignorance on his/her part but insecurity of not possesing power onto which is deemed submissive.

...yeah they don't think about other things nor have a brain of their own. They're just a bunch of b*****s used only for breeding....

They dont. Why? Because guys who are getting laid have managed to figure out that their opinions of women are IRRELEVANT to how attractive they are in the eyes of women. I hope aging broads finally start to realize that men these days are just too damn smart to buy into the pathetic, naive myth that adulating women is the only way to get laid.

Haliphron, it is angry, disrespectful men like you who have created animosity between the sexes. Maybe this is how feminism works as birth control.
Men and women hating each can be a way to control the population. Who would want to raise children with someone whom they see as the enemy?

We need to start treating each other better.

So it was big, bad old Haliphron who started the battle of the sexes............. Seriously, I cant help but sneer at women who try to invalidate men who say things that they happen not to like by stipulating that their motives are based soley on not getting laid.

Yes, it was all your fault haliphron. You created the need for feminism single handedly.

Because I wasn't thinking very clearly, and wasn't quite sure that I understood what you meant. Your reply was very helpful.


I imagine that you are referring to certain countries in the Middle East and North Africa. I could argue that in Turkey, for example, traditional religious control having been significantly relaxed during the Ataturk period, giving women unprecedented rights for an islamic country, may have contributed to population control there. But in fact I agree with you completely that population control in most of these countries has little or nothing to do with feminism.

But the title of my thread is not "Population Control is Feminism" , ( nor is it "Feminism = Population Control", which would suggest that they were exclusively identical to each other ). I am not suggesting that wherever you find population control there also feminism will be. Instead I am saying that wherever feminism is adopted there will then/very soon be population control, ( amongst other things ) .

What I am hypothesising is that giving women sexual and reproductive rights may automatically lead to population control. ie: If not obliged by society/social taboos to live with a man, ( or stay with her parents, or enter a nunnery, or be ostracised ), to have sex with him on a regular basis, ( because that was a husband's right with his wife ), and bring to term most of her pregnancies, ( because abortion was either illegal or dangerous ), and if allowed to earn and own money, women will not have more children than the community or the environment can sustain.

In fact the only proof that this is not the case would be evidence of a society in which women had equal rights, ( over their bodies in particular ), and yet had significantly more children than could be supported by the resources available. I am suggesting that women, and perhaps men too, given the right social framework, will refrain from having children if there is overpopulation. I agree that this sort of self-regulation does not apply to all animal species, but that the higher mammals do seem to do it.

In humans this self-regulation may express itself in social structures, rather than in more directly instinctive/physical behaviours. Patriarchal systems were put in place when the human population was small, and served to increase size of families. If the patriarchal system had not been so successful in that way, ( making sure that people were "fruitful and multiplied" ), and at increasing resources, ( with technology, etc ), to support the growing numbers, I wonder whether women's rights would ever have been necessary.

Because although there were/are plenty of abuses under the old system(s) I do not believe that the majority of the women in those systems were unhappier, ( until it got out of control/exploded/went too far anyway ), than the majority of women in the USA or the UK now. Perhaps that is heresy.

.

Last edited by ouinon on 18 Dec 2008, 12:27 pm, edited 3 times in total.

You forgot to add that humans are least likely than animals to have a predator control their population.

Because we are industrious, we have the ability to create weapons and safe havens against any specious that would prey on us or the young. Thousands of years ago, it was a bit different.

In our far more industrious societies, it is almost impossible to run into a gigantic creature that wants to make a meal of us unlike other specious. Perhaps, birth control or wanting a certain amount of children is "nature's" way of controlling a population that is not under any threat.

Overpopulation is just as bad as underpopulation. This is why in my country, we've had to shoot most of the deer mainly because of their overpopulation and the predators that would've eaten them that are now long gone.

Last edited by MissConstrue on 18 Dec 2008, 8:43 am, edited 2 times in total.

Lucky you. Hunting deer is illegal here. I love deer meat. T_T

Peace.