Men less evolved?

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

Men less evolved?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress >> Men less evolved?

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Men less evolved? - 4/30/2007 12:11:17 AM

Posts: 9
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline

When I was at university I had a female lecturer that argued that men are simply less evolved than women. If you think it through it actually makes a lot of sense and has become one the founding principles of why I serve.

Men are more aggressive, more driven by animal desires like lust, and physically less evolved (hairier etc). In short men are just not suitable in many ways for the modern age which is why I have come to believe that women should be dominate. The only reason it has traditionally been the other way around is because in many cases men have been physically stronger. This is simply wrong.

Anyway, I was wondering if others share this thinking or if I am mislead?

RE: Men less evolved? - 4/30/2007 12:48:12 AM

Posts: 1234
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

BarcardiBoi am sure someone could make a convincing arguement for this but that wouldn't be me. Will watch the thread with interest.

_____________________________

quote:

"To learn the art of submission a slave must first give up the desires that drew him to submission in the first place." Mistress Jasmyn Jan 2005.

Visit My Website

(in reply to barcodeBoi)

RE: Men less evolved? - 4/30/2007 12:53:54 AM

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

Your lecturer didn't understand the concept of evolution. Let me guess, she wasn't a biologist, right? I bet she taught in the social sciences or something.

quote:

ORIGINAL: barcodeBoi

When I was at university I had a female lecturer that argued that men are simply less evolved than women.

(in reply to barcodeBoi)

RE: Men less evolved? - 4/30/2007 1:02:25 AM

Posts: 263
Joined: 5/10/2005
Status: offline

It's true in a sense, but not because of hair *laughs* or aggression, that's nonsense, like LAM said, your lecturer obviously is not a biologist.

However females do have better separation of the urinary and reproductive systems, which one could say is a more evolved feature, at least if we weren't the same bloody species. Whether that's significant in any way is a different issue, but at least it's true.

If you enjoy submitting to women, fine, enjoy that. But don't feel like you need a bunch of pseudoscientific nonsense to justify your kink.

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

RE: Men less evolved? - 4/30/2007 1:03:52 AM

Posts: 47
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline

quote:

"I don’t know if all of you men know this, but no women were involved in the planning or execution of the Apollo 11 mission to the moon." - Dick Masterson

http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/feminism-traded-cooking-for-blowjobs/

_____________________________

-Devil's Advocate-

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

RE: Men less evolved? - 4/30/2007 1:07:54 AM

Posts: 101
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: right behind you
Status: offline

I would tend to disagree with this theory. My belief is that men and women simply serve different functions.

While it is true that men are frequently attracted to primarily superficial qualities, I personally have experienced no difference whatsoever with the frequency of women to act in the same manner. Also, men are in no way less suited to "the modern age." Women may statistically have a greater ability to multitask and are usually regarded as having better social skills than men (the latter, I disagree with, by the way, based on my observations of the petty issues they always seem to have with each other) which are both neccessary skills when dealing with a more complicated lifestyle, but men are statistically far better at processing and retaining technical information - which is the foundation of most things "modern."

I don't think either gender is more or less "evolved" than the other, just different.

-edited to add: That whole "the vagina is ergonomically superior to the penis" thing, though, I totally agree with that.

< Message edited by Tenebrious -- 4/30/2007 1:27:58 AM >

(in reply to barcodeBoi)

RE: Men less evolved? - 4/30/2007 2:12:56 AM

Posts: 127
Joined: 7/10/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

There was a "camp" of folk who once claimed that, and - claimed to be able to prove that: men were brain damaged in the process of gestation - the proposal being that as all babies begin as girls, that this brain damage occurs as the genes and genetics transition to male ... They were working out a "demonic male principal" - honestly I didn't get overly into it because well ... I honestly don't feel the need to be so ... (sorry) - retarded about the whole thing.

You COULD argue ...
Women will be able to transplant a womb, grow their Own sperm and fully make their OWN babies without a partner or a functioning womb ... or heck their Own womb at ALL for that matter - in relatively short order - which would mean if all the boys were gone, the species would still continue ... and in the end ... that's the thing that kinda is the clincher ain't it ... NOTHING to do with body hair and multi-tasking ... everything to do with reproduction and the ability to continue the species ... If there were no Women on the planet ... it'd be a sad & sorry 40 - 60 yrs into species extermination; if there were no men - we'd be able to continue.
THIS is the final and agreed upon bit of reality and wisdom.
XxoxX

_____________________________

http://www.sinpages.com
Where fetish and desire are explored

(in reply to Tenebrious)

RE: Men less evolved? - 4/30/2007 2:18:58 AM

Posts: 47
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: barcodeBoi

When I was at university I had a female lecturer that argued that men are simply less evolved than women.

quote:

You COULD argue ...
Women will be able to transplant a womb, grow their Own sperm and fully make their OWN babies without a partner or a functioning womb ... or heck their Own womb at ALL for that matter - in relatively short order - which would mean if all the boys were gone, the species would still continue ... and in the end ... that's the thing that kinda is the clincher ain't it ... NOTHING to do with body hair and multi-tasking ... everything to do with reproduction and the ability to continue the species ... If there were no Women on the planet ... it'd be a sad & sorry 40 - 60 yrs into species extermination; if there were no men - we'd be able to continue.
THIS is the final and agreed upon bit of reality and wisdom.

What ignorant drivel. Females aren’t below us, you simply are an inferior form of human. The only thing that you seem to do with proficiency, is give birth on occasion, and bitch about it. Your fatal flaw is that you regard your natural protectors as “oppressing” because you now have the luxury to live without fear of predators, or disease for the most part. Things that MEN have provided you with. How saddening that you view us this way, and are changing the natural paradign daily. This was all made possible by MEN. BarcodeBoi, your female "lecturer" failed to point out that Evolution was a concept that was created by Charles Darwin a MAN.

< Message edited by Lucidian -- 4/30/2007 2:31:03 AM >

_____________________________

-Devil's Advocate-

(in reply to barcodeBoi)

RE: - 4/30/2007 2:26:30 AM

Posts: 47
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline

^
Edited Reply.

< Message edited by Lucidian -- 4/30/2007 2:28:57 AM >

(in reply to Lucidian)

RE: Men less evolved? - 4/30/2007 2:29:49 AM

Posts: 127
Joined: 7/10/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

LOL ... as I said

:)
END results - is the point ...
XxoxX

< Message edited by Sekhemet -- 4/30/2007 2:30:45 AM >

_____________________________

http://www.sinpages.com
Where fetish and desire are explored

(in reply to Lucidian)

RE: Men less evolved? - 4/30/2007 2:33:54 AM

Posts: 127
Joined: 7/10/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

Luci - you'd fare well to do some research - society has NOT always been patriarchal hon ...
and times - change.

It's about to be Our turn again - and you know where I'M sitting if men werent so how shall I put it ... male ...
then what the heck would they have to be worried about - there wouldn't BE a concern would there - after all everyone is EQUAL??? But you sound concerned Luci - maybe you and your brothers should have a wee chat - NOT about how to further oppress women - but how to work WITH US ... as you are touting should be done.
XxoxX Maybe ... XxoxX

_____________________________

http://www.sinpages.com
Where fetish and desire are explored

(in reply to Sekhemet)

RE: Men less evolved? - 4/30/2007 2:38:29 AM

Domin8tingUrDrmz

Posts: 1269
Joined: 4/8/2006
From: Portland Metro, Oregon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sekhemet

You COULD argue ...
Women will be able to transplant a womb, grow their Own sperm and fully make their OWN babies without a partner or a functioning womb ... or heck their Own womb at ALL for that matter - in relatively short order - which would mean if all the boys were gone, the species would still continue ... and in the end ... that's the thing that kinda is the clincher ain't it ... NOTHING to do with body hair and multi-tasking ... everything to do with reproduction and the ability to continue the species ... If there were no Women on the planet ... it'd be a sad & sorry 40 - 60 yrs into species extermination; if there were no men - we'd be able to continue.
THIS is the final and agreed upon bit of reality and wisdom.
XxoxX

While I choose not to debate whether or not men or women are superior to one another, I did want to point out one thing.

You could also argue that men could exist without women and continue to reproduce. In addition to the amount of sperm which is in reserve there are plenty of embryos and unfertilized eggs available. Since science has the ability to clone animals, surely they could (perhaps not legally) clone eggs indefinately. They too could perform selective reproduction and produce a male only society.

The only flaw with either a male or female only society is that ...well, I enjoy men. Men enjoy us. At least, for the most part.

_____________________________

4 out of 3 people have trouble with fractions.

Ask a Mistress Forum FAQ
Profile Help

(in reply to Sekhemet)

RE: Men less evolved? - 4/30/2007 2:45:25 AM

Posts: 47
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline

quote:

It's about to be Our turn again - and you know where I'M sitting if men werent so how shall I put it ... male ...
then what the heck would they have to be worried about - there wouldn't BE a concern would there - after all everyone is EQUAL??? But you sound concerned Luci - maybe you and your brothers should have a wee chat - NOT about how to further oppress women - but how to work WITH US ... as you are touting should be done.

How theatric,

Yes! Everyone is equal but some people are just more equal than others!

"Man descended from apes, and life is a vicious struggle for survival. If that is not what your kindly grandma taught you, do not believe that therefore it is not so. Every species on this planet is locked in a momentous struggle to survive. The vast majority of species eventually fail and go extinct, as a paleobiological examination of rock records will attest. There are some species, however, which perform a little trick which sees them through to another age, though it comes at a cost—they must transform themselves!

The eusocialists believe that a debilitating naiveté has enveloped the modern world. Glutted with wealth, power, and peace, the modern world has put on its rose colored glasses and gone to sleep. According to modern sentiment, there are universal human rights, everyone is created equal, everyone has a right to live, and life is a constant struggle for happiness, pleasure, self-fulfillment, or whatever you want. The problem with such a worldview, however, is that it does not accord itself with the laws of nature. These laws say something quite different: human rights are a function of human culture not the laws of physics, no one is created equal, no one has a right to live unless they prove themselves, and life is a constant struggle for survival. Is that what you wanted to hear, that life is an unceasing, cruel, unforgiving, brutal, vicious, nasty, unrelenting battle, both between individuals and between individuals and their environment? That’s not the kind of thing they teach you in Sunday school, is it?
This counterpoint to modern sentiment derived from the laws of nature is a rather depressing view of the world, but fortunately, neither is this worldview all that it seems. Ironically, it is the very viciousness of the evolutionary struggle for survival which creates the evolutionary math necessary to generate and sustain such phenomena as altruism, eusocialism, and hyperbinding. Or to put it simply, in a world which is vicious, friends and cooperation become all the more important. Moreover, this process of evolutionary competition and warfare is the fundamental generator which is driving our world towards transfiguration. Thus, while evolutionary theory shows the sentiments of modern popular culture to be ridiculously soft and naïve, it simultaneously offers the profound opiate of optimism that our world will become a better place." - Aaron

You would not exist if a MAN (in sometime or another) did not provide for you.

Let's take a look at one of the definitions of the word "Superior."

su·pe·ri·or - adjective

6. not yielding or susceptible

Now that we have these things called "laws" (that MEN created & enforce) women are no longer susceptible to extreme amounts of violence. At least, not as much.

I'm sure some of you may argue that I would not exist if it had not been (at some point in time) for the nuturing of a WOMAN.

Then I realized that it is not beyond the capabilities of a MAN to raise a child.

quote:

NOT about how to further oppress women -

You speak as though you live in a third world country,

Is Canada really that bad?

A few sexual jokes in your lunch area at work, is not "oppression" it isn't even harassment.

quote:

maybe you and your brothers should have a wee chat

My brothers and I do not chat... we Altercate.

Women chat... and ten times out of ten it is about meaningless bullshit.

I realize that this discussion with you is only engorging your "feminine sexual prowess" but on false attestation, because you fail to bring any reason in you emotional based logic.

< Message edited by Lucidian -- 4/30/2007 3:34:05 AM >

_____________________________

-Devil's Advocate-

(in reply to Sekhemet)

RE: Men less evolved? - 4/30/2007 2:55:41 AM

Posts: 370
Joined: 1/10/2006
From: Toronto
Status: offline

Women are actually "less evolved" than men, biologically speaking, if one means the furthest derived from an original specimen. A male fetus begins as a female and ony develops male traits when exposed to male hormones in the womb at the right time. If the fetus, which would have been male genetically, is instead exposed to female hormones in the womb at the critical time, it will develop with female traits. Therefore you could argue that men are a "derivation of woman" with a little extra.

But this is all nonsense anyhow, because bacteria are far and away the best suited for life on earth, given their longevity and the fact that they will persist in nearly any environment. I believe in Bacterial Supremacy!!! Bow to E. Coli!

(in reply to barcodeBoi)

RE: Men less evolved? - 4/30/2007 2:57:27 AM

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

How many women involved in creating the atomic bomb, I wonder?

Another great thing that would not exist if a MAN did not provide it for us.

And interestingly, the one thing which more than any other perhaps, castrated males of their ability and urge for an aggressive struggle for survival against one another by way of war, and raised the importance of skills more associated with the female gender.

Sorry boys, you yourselves put the girls on top. Best evolve, quick.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to Lucidian)

RE: Men less evolved? - 4/30/2007 3:06:25 AM

Posts: 101
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: right behind you
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Domin8tingUrDrmz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sekhemet

You COULD argue ...
Women will be able to transplant a womb, grow their Own sperm and fully make their OWN babies without a partner or a functioning womb ... or heck their Own womb at ALL for that matter - in relatively short order - which would mean if all the boys were gone, the species would still continue ... and in the end ... that's the thing that kinda is the clincher ain't it ... NOTHING to do with body hair and multi-tasking ... everything to do with reproduction and the ability to continue the species ... If there were no Women on the planet ... it'd be a sad & sorry 40 - 60 yrs into species extermination; if there were no men - we'd be able to continue.
THIS is the final and agreed upon bit of reality and wisdom.
XxoxX

While I choose not to debate whether or not men or women are superior to one another, I did want to point out one thing.

You could also argue that men could exist without women and continue to reproduce. In addition to the amount of sperm which is in reserve there are plenty of embryos and unfertilized eggs available. Since science has the ability to clone animals, surely they could (perhaps not legally) clone eggs indefinately. They too could perform selective reproduction and produce a male only society.

The only flaw with either a male or female only society is that ...well, I enjoy men. Men enjoy us. At least, for the most part.

I totally agree. Like I said, "just different."
If you feel the need to validate your existence by devaluing others, you only serve to reinforce my reasoning for why I don't think women have "superior" social skills to men.

(in reply to Domin8tingUrDrmz)

RE: Men less evolved? - 4/30/2007 3:32:45 AM

Posts: 47
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline

quote:

How many women involved in creating the atomic bomb, I wonder?

Another great thing that would not exist if a MAN did not provide it for us.

This statement is fallacious. It is an Appeal to Emotion.

I suppose you undermine the good that was derived from WWII & blame all of the negative aspects of war on MEN?

_____________________________

-Devil's Advocate-

(in reply to Tenebrious)

RE: Men less evolved? - 4/30/2007 4:35:50 AM

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucidian

quote:

How many women involved in creating the atomic bomb, I wonder?

Another great thing that would not exist if a MAN did not provide it for us.

This statement is fallacious. It is an Appeal to Emotion.

I suppose you undermine the good that was derived from WWII & blame all of the negative aspects of war on MEN?

Yes. Any time a female disagrees with you, it is because she is emotional and driven by her hormonal cycle...... unlike males of course, who are not at all driven by their socially induced lack of emotion and the high levels of testosterone swimming about their system......

The origins and reasons for war - thats a big topic, but I know already that you will say that men only start wars to impress women with their heroism or to protect women from other men intent on demonstrating their heroism to their own women, or to obtain more resources to impress women and support their offspring, or to protect women from other men intent on the same ends.

WWII - A lot of people died, a lot of people went through suffering beyond the understanding of most of us, a great evil was undone to accomplish this, and I assume this latter is the good you will say came from it. The thing is though, the great evil in question would never have come about, were it not for the evils of the WWI victors at Versailles; men triumphantly humiliating a defeated opponent...

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to Lucidian)

RE: Men less evolved? - 4/30/2007 4:42:31 AM

asubmissiveheart

Posts: 462
Joined: 11/20/2006
Status: offline

From the behavior I see on CM, I would say yes men are less evolved.

(in reply to barcodeBoi)

RE: Men less evolved? - 4/30/2007 4:43:52 AM

Posts: 47
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline

quote:

Yes. Any time a female disagrees with you, it is because she is emotional and driven by her hormonal cycle...... unlike males of course, who are not at all driven by their socially induced lack of emotion and the high levels of testosterone swimming about their system......

The origins and reasons for war - thats a big topic, but I know already that you will say that men only start wars to impress women with their heroism or to protect women from other men intent on demonstrating their heroism to their own women, or to obtain more resources to impress women and support their offspring, or to protect women from other men intent on the same ends.

And you know what?

You are 100% correct!

You're begining to understand!

quote:

were it not for the evils of the WWI victors at Versailles; men triumphantly humiliating a defeated opponent...

And if it wasn't for Harry Truman, with all of his testicular fortitude dropping on Hiroshima.....

< Message edited by Lucidian -- 4/30/2007 4:47:47 AM >

_____________________________

-Devil's Advocate-

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress >> Men less evolved?

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.090