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.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (212308)	1/10/2007 4:07:54 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

I have no idea what Noel meant. I suppose the word "freaking" as being a euphemism for the unacceptable version was what did it. I thought the parasitizing word is perfect. A baby is made of both father and mother DNA. Parasitizing is precisely what the male's DNA is doing. It is using the woman's DNA as a carrier and supporter for its own propagation and the woman's DNA is NOT in the interests of the male's DNA. The woman's DNA is simply a carrier, like malaria uses humans as carriers and tapeworms use humans as carriers. The female has nothing invested in the Y chromosome. She doesn't even have one. But it's not all a one way street. The female fills the baby with her mitochondria and also half of the other DNA. Usually, human males and females size each other up and come to an agreement to act symbiotically. Each benefits from the other's efforts. But, the female invests a LOT more in the infant, supply 2 years of nutrients [more or less] and a LOT of physical input, hormonal loads and all sorts. The bloke's romantic attachment can be as peremptory as Genghis Khan rampaging across the landscape fertilizing the female survivors of his genocides. He spends a few minutes impregnating her, she spends years raising the infant and she does, even if raped. Hormones seem to see to that. I doubt that many raped women in the olde days before abortions were doable abandoned their infants after conquest and rape. I dare say they adapted to the new rulers like female lions do to the new male who chases off the incumbent and kills the babies. Parasitized is precisely what it is. Even if the baby is wanted, it's still a parasitic process. Also, I have a theory that women who don't have their babies naturally miss out on bonding because normal birth processes flood mothers with hormones which makes them baby-brained and bonded. Women who have a pain-free caesarian for example miss out on those processes, so my theory predicts that women who have caesarians have a high incidence of post-natal depression. I think the depression is a result of interrupted pregancy bonding processes so the woman hormonally has lost her baby. But she still has one. But she doesn't have the hormones to go with it. So she is more like a male in her relationship to the baby. Sure, we blokes love our children and bond with them and all that, but I don't believe it's anything like a mother's bonding. A woman who loses here baby after a full-term pregnancy is probably set up for depression because of floods of hormones telling her she has a baby, but she hasn't. Caesarians are like not having the baby. That's my theory. Does that make sense? I dare say post natal depression has been heavily researched and the data is sitting there in Google somewhere as to whether there is correlation with caesarians and natural birth without pain killers. Mqurice