The Straight Men Who Want Nothing to Do With Women
C. Brian Smith

I read this carefully, because I intend to write a book that includes this subject. I guess I should say the book is one of a group about how to create a long term livable society where humanity can survive and develop. The premise is that the world is rapidly changing and we need to understand the changes, how they are all related and how the solutions must be related. Ecology is the tool used to organize the topics, based around the assumption that what we need to do is develop and adapt to a new ecology to replace the so called hunter/gatherer tribal ecology that we left when we started to develop civilization, a new ecology. The topics include the requirements for adaptations in genetics, strategies, philosophies and morality. This is obviously biased towards what the gays sometimes quaintly call “breeders”, but now it is clearly not just the gays… who are often now having children… This really does not greatly refer to those who do not reproduce by choice or circumstance, but hopefully they consider themselves to be part of something bigger, humanity and so work to help it to survive, even if they have rejected some levels of participation.

Sew… I would have a great answer if I was finished with the book, but I can tell you a few things on the topic. Be clear, there are dang full spectrums of both masculine and feminine behavior in both men and women. Anything said about one gender, is likely to apply to the other in some cases. The point is to come up with useful understandings though rather than scoring points and while variable, some behaviors are far more common to one gender than another…

There are complaints about both men and women. I am going to suggest that there are adaptations men need to make, say a reduction in dominance behavior. It drives both men and women crazy (coming form both men and women), but it raises the question of then what corresponding adjustment would be appropriate to women? Looking at socio-biology, which is the science that describes differences between males and females … and so is completely discredited currently, one can see a lot of things that seem to make sense… even if it is politically incorrect… One finds a very interesting and counter intuitive situation in humans. Mammals are typically polygamous, that is one “superior” high status male mates with many females of all statuses. Males are bigger than females to be able to aggressively compete for females. The most important difference between males and females is the number of offspring they can typically have. Males can potentially have far more than females, because they have far less initial investment. Males use something of a quantity strategy and females use something of a quality strategy. It is quite different in ways. In typical mammals, females basically raises the children without the help of the males and males can even be a hazard, both because they are competitors for the same resources and may even endanger the offspring.

Now that can change in a more demanding environment where the female needs help raising the children, even in a normally monogamous specie. In humans, that have a long demanding development period, we are normally monogamous. (This is the hard part to get your mind around.) Note here, that the adjustment is made by the male. He -evolved- a behavior that keeps him with the female. It is a bonding behavior and probably related to the all important bonding behavior of mothers to offspring. (We are adaptable and mix and match as needed.) We call this love, the male wants to be with the female and wants what is best for her. This male mate bonding behavior in humans has become almost as common as mother child bonding behavior which is not universal either. Note that unlike the male, the female has not had to adapt, all she has to do is tolerate the male and take the investment he adds to raising the child. On the other hand, the male behavior includes that he wants to be wanted. He wants to be loved. That is the key point! It could be said that women only love their children and never needed to develop mate bonding behavior, love, for their mates. It is not so simple, because it turns out that there is actually advantages to it for her as well and we blur our behaviors, BUT it is not near as universal as male bonding behavior. Some women simply do not love and not only is there great variation on this point, but there is ethnic variation as well. Hell is a man desiring the love of his mate and not getting it. A witch is a female refusing to extend love to her mate.

Now this is a short and simplified version of the story, but I hope it makes sense. May I add one more point that follows this. Stay with me a little further…

Humans have limited reproductive instinct, generally though females more than males. We do have great instinct to have sex though, which usually results in children, which releases parenting instincts and behaviors… It works out. Now abortion is the rage of the moral/cultural wars, but if you think about it, birth control is far more significant to survival, because it short circuits the results of sex, which is perhaps out most important reproductive instinct. As we see today, many people are happy not having children, but … I hope you can guess the result will be that over a few generations, the survivors will be the descendants of people that had more reproductive instinct than to have sex. That is for sure… Now here is an assumption I will have to skip the supporting arguments for, as they are too long to put here, but take my word for it that (1) single parenting, while appealing, is not a good survival strategy. Also (2) It is not just reproductive instinct that is going to be required to survive into the future, it is going to be a conscious moral decision to have a family and not be distracted/seduced by all the potential kinetic distractions from video games to some nice sexbots. (3) The only way for family to be beneficial/desirable enough for both partners to commit to it is if they are both quite loving… The corresponding female behavior to the need for a reduction in male dominance behavior, is a need for a reduction in natural selfishness and an increase in female loving behavior.

Yah, well I’ll write a book about it and it will make a lot more sense, but I think this will make the point. Hope so…