Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (78520)	4/19/2000 3:52:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

In all advanced countries, birth control becomes pervasive, and family limitation becomes the norm. In any event, the desire to have "your own" is not necessarily adaptive, it is just there......

To: epicure who wrote (78520)	4/19/2000 5:06:00 PM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I think you are wrong about animals being primed to reproduce individually. Individuals may all be so primed (but some males don't even try, or stop with a single success showing their reproductive weakness). Social behaviors also moderate or control individual reproductive impulses. It is well-established, I believe, that only the alpha male and alpha female wolf (and dog) living freely in a pack reproduce. Mrs. Thomas relates her female husky murdering the illicit litter of her dingo. There are many other species in which many males and females compete to reproduce, even at the level of the sperm. Only the most vigorous and energetic sperm wins the race to penetrate the human female ovum. In bees, it may take seven or eight male bees to fully fertilize the queen, but there are hundreds in the chase. If there were no prepotent males and widespread polygamy I think evolution would be much slower and might not adapt fast enough for some species to survive. Of course, the tendancy for loose women to let anyone breed with them spreads their genes widely. It seems to me that the tendency of some alpha human males to impregnate every accessible female has an enormous effect of spreading polyprogenitive "royal" genes through the sluttish peasantry. The royal family, inbred, degenerates. A hearty peasantry enriched with noble genes rises and overthrows the ancien regime.

To: epicure who wrote (78520)	4/19/2000 8:38:00 PM
From: Edwarda	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

X, I swore that I'd stay out of this discussion as I am on both sides of it so that my contributions would probably seem ambiguous. However, I have a personal bit of info that might prove of interest: During the course of my marriage, when I proposed adoption of the child that a friend was carrying who did not want to have an abortion, my husband was appalled--raising a child not ours?!!! And I was appalled in turn. Of course, I wanted a child of our union--our love, the genetic imperative, whatever. That was not the issue--for me. It was a matter of living out the "pro-life" libertarian belief (cutting through the cant with one's own life) and, far more important, giving a child a home and a life that offered happiness and a center. (For a time, I dated and came close to marrying a person who had spent his formative years in an orphanage so I know how important the sense of a "center" can be.) We are not married today. Even today, my soul curls at the edges at his reaction. I was not suggesting that we not have children of our own bodies; I was suggesting that we do one step more. As for the sense of loss when we women pass our reproductive years, I think it is partly as you state, the loss of our reproductive abilities. I think it is also that we fear what our lower hormone levels may suggest in terms of our sexual attractiveness to our husbands, lovers, whatever. I have posted on this subject before, so I shall not belabor it. I shall simply say that I think that women underestimate themselves.