Piper

I forgot to add this comment yesterday.

About my moniker for the Renderosity site: PIXEL - darn, why didn't I think of that - very cute and clever. I mostly do landscape photography with some arty-farty stuff thrown in - but all derived from the natural world.

Yabby

You are spending a great deal of time here arguing with the nasty feminists, and rarely make an observation on a topic you started yourself - "Our Godly Origins". Makes it very clear where your priorities are at. And hilarious as well.

Maybe its your hormones that make you so argumentative with anyone who disagrees with you. Go pop another viagra, dear.

Antonius

<< Even the idiots know that humans control their self, are responsible for their acts that hormnes, any hormones controled from our brain, from our self. >>

Not ALL idiots apparently.

Yabby – why do you call me “Dickie?” Is it not to humiliate me? Do you actually believe your malevolence could affect me in any way? Of course in the sick minds of brutes and hypocrites, control is paramount.

My “little rant” in fact is entirely relevant to the topic while your irrelevant and incessant screeching continues, shoved down our throats and not infrequently. But hey... when do you plan a refresher course on oxytocin?

Back to the topic where throughout the thread you malign women for not providing birth control. What would you suggest for a fifteen year old girl whose chemistry is working overtime? Shove her on the pill just in case? What about a long-acting synthetic hormonal method like a shot in the rump to stuff up her biological processes? Of course if the lass is plump or has taken up smoking these synthetic hormones place her at greater risk of blood clots and other medical conditions.

One can consider the insertion of a sponge or diaphragm shoved up the hapless teenager's vagina, I guess. It’s of no surprise that the male controlled pharmaceutical corporations have failed to invent birth control methods for the male. And of course, the male would cry foul as he does with the use of a condom complaining that a condom reduces sensation during intercourse while others wince at the thought of a vasectomy – a simple, outpatient procedure!

Without a condom, how do these birth control methods prevent the gruesome STD infections carried in semen (particularly HIV) that you guys spread around with relish? Don’t you love that rumour that HIV originated from a homosapien male having sex with a monkey? Who would have thought that?

Now we have the male insisting that women should empower themselves by always providing the condoms to protect the male species. Hey Yabby – good advice but no wonder sales on turkey basters have gone through the roof and with $1 billion child support debt and the emergence of wised-up, financially independent women, who needs a hit/runner as a sperm donor?

contd…….

Antiseptic,

"be more like them?" Where did I say that?
The absence of an extreme doesn't automatically imply the opposite extreme.
I was making observations not comparative judgement which are like comparing apples with durions. Subjective and pointless.
I'm not interested in playing those games.

Yabby
My basic points are still valid....
- 14 years is a long time and a lot of refinement has taken place in that time.

- The issue isn't the book it's your over statement of the conclusions that concerns me. I've read the book and yes, it's good in context.
- I also made the point that the interplay is far more nuanced than indicated by you here and on other posts.
- Conditioning/environment can and does make substantial differences.
e.g. I've seen teenagers talking to each other while absent mindedly playing with venomous scorpions. The same goes for Asian snake rituals.

Popular book are interesting in a general sense of overall mechanisms But one should be cognisant of their limitations.

Just because a male is aroused doesn't mean he has to act on it or that he has little control over his actions. Which is what you suggest in some current posts. Even the best possible interpretation that the mechanism, as you describe it that it explains behaviour from feral footy boys to wayward fathers is simply not credible or supportable (including by those books)

B/F

Oh yes – your propensity to chop up little puppies Yabby. While you portray the human female as irresponsible, money grubbing man trappers - overloading the planet with unwanted babies, the control freak thinks nothing of wilfully permitting the insemination of a canine bitch.

The bitch goes through the painful process of delivery, drops the puppies so the heinous Yabby can take to them with an axe. Of course this is all to do with the reluctance of the powerful one to spay the bitch in the first place. Why spend money for birth control when an axe is available and the axeman is above human morality? Hmmmm…and I wonder how my kindly neighbours in Urbansville would react if they witnessed me chopping up live canines?

I trust you’ll forgive me Yabby for also pointing out that in your frequent, tedious lectures; you’ve not referred to the hypothalamus which is stimulated when spotting the enemy and initiates a sequence of nerve cell firing and chemical release that prepares the body for running or fighting - the "flight or fight" response.

This chemical reaction was a primitive evolutionary response to protect man from the proverbial sabre tooth tigers in the woods and fields around us, threatening our physical survival. However, the primitive 21st century, homosapien now uses it to flee his responsibilities.

The irresponsible male can whinge, demean women, board a plane, hide out, go on the dole or just give the finger so he can continue impregnating the hapless female and free of charge too! All that’s needed is one egg a month from the female and some 120 million sperm per ejaculation from the male – seven days a week - 365 days a year!

I'm a bit too busy to post much for a while, but just dropped by to procrastinate again for a few minutes.

Antonios; Fractelle, Protagoras and Examinator - thank goodness for your sanity and your shared sense of human decency. Applause; applause to each of you - great posts.

Fraccy dear, just because I don't post on a thread, does not mean
that I don't read what is being written. You and Pericles are making
some great contributions there, so I have no need to add anything.

You do indeed have your intelligent moments, but only sometimes :)

Anyhow, I'm happy that you concede that hormones affect human behaviour,
as you have agreed, earlier in this thread, when you raised
the issue of pregnant women.

Brain function just happens to be a pet topic of mine, I've spent
years learning about it and always interesting to note, how little
most people know, about what affects their ownn behaviour. But
when its pointed out to them, some take to it like a duck to water
and it helps in people understanding themselves, as well as
other people around them.

*Just because a male is aroused doesn't mean he has to act on it or that he has little control over his actions*

Very true Examinator. But let me put it this way. When Antonious
was a teenager with raging testosterone and woke up with a great big
hard on, he'd be more likely to try and have sex with the girl lying
next to him in bed, then if he was 80. That is my point. Hormones
affect behaviour, they do not determine it. Antonious can claim
that his raging hard on had nothing to do with it, but I think he
is wrong.

Yes, new information about how hormones affect behaviour is appearing
all the time:

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20090602/Why-does-dishing-with-a-girlfriend-do-wonders-for-a-womans-mood.aspx

and

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2009/04/29/48971.aspx

Dickie, given that you are the raving lunatic on the thread, I'll have to leave my
response to your many claims until later, when I have posts to spare.