I was going to carry on more about the People Who Are Assholes thing . . .
I had it all brilliantly laid out in my mind last night, as I was relaxing in bed, getting ready for the sandman's visit. However, right now I don't want to bother all that much with constructing sentences, and then marshalling them into (mostly?) coherent paragraphs, and lead the reader to some preordained and natural, logical conclusion.
Reason for that is likely because I just finished a semi-stream of conscious and semi-planned diatribe about how the Bush Admin's War in Iraq is behind Iran's wet dream of having nukes of their very own (yes I basically gave up politics here, but I still dabble in ANALYSIS on a board or two.)
But anyway . . . here is my thesis, albeit less than elegantly told:
I am begining to believe that not only is the high % of assholes among the human race never likely to slack off, but prehaps may not even be an accident. It very well could be the result of some Darwinian Glitch, some ancient mutation in the genome; some junk in the collective DNA of the species; some bad code still found in the collective code of humanity.
Afterall, assholes are the cockaroches of the species, and as we all know, roaches are the most adapatable vermin out there; nature's champion surviors. So what does the survival traits of roaches have to do human (looking/seeming) assholes?
Not that this thought only came to me after reading the article I did, this past week; it has been part of my data set for decades. But I read something that triggered these old thoughts in a paper this week in an article about human mating and dating selections.
As I have suspected, and as proven (so say they) by some researchers, women are more likely to be attracted to the more seeming virile looking of men, when they are closer to ovulating, as opposed to being further away from that point in their cycles.
**Link to an article explaining this theory, not same one I read**
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/376321.stm
And as far as the alleged virility is concerned, what if there is some connection between seeming virility and some other traits? What if excessive levels of testosterone is more likely to produce brutish traits? Perhaps the unintended result of an excess of the male hormone very often leads to men who are . . . loud, pushy, grasping, greedy, destructive, overly aggressive, selfish and too fond of farting and fart jokes?
In other words, what if there is a connection between the superficial traits of seeming virility and those of the Common Human Male Asshole?
Hmm. That research supports the thought I have had for years. That (sorry ladies) there is a defect in the X chromosome that allows for women to look at a male asshole, ignore the brutish asshole traits (and attraction to farting and fart jokes), focus on the seeming virility, reproduce and pair with such males, thereby creating another generation of assholes (and eventually keeping divorce lawyers and psychologists and marriage counselors employed.)
And the cycle continues, on and on.
Oh and before I get hammered on by women for my statement about the defect on the X chromosome, let me say that firstly . . . ladies there has to be some biological reason for them assholes still being around after 10,000 years of human civilization. I do not mean it as insult but only as explaining a cruel trick of nature. Years and centuries and tens of centuries ago, a woman had a higher chance of being protected by a less evolved male. Survival depended less on verbal and reasoning skills, and more on being more beastly than whatever or whoever the male had to compete with, for scarce necessary resources.
But do we still live in that kind of world? Do we still need to protect and perpetuate (as primary traits), as a species, the traits that made for a perfectly suitable member of a tribe of prehistoric hunter gatherers, or do we need more thinkers and more thoughtful males, now? (I think every male, if not person, currently alive on the planet has some of the traits as secondary, in the code; that will never be bred out of us, I imagine, so nothing will be lost, it seems if we loose the asshole traits as primary traits except for Howard Stern Fans.)
Oh and further (if only to be fair) I will admit to the 'as bad if not worse' glitch on the Y chromosome:
There is not good reason for men to think that Pretty Women, or Women with Big Tits, or Wide Hips and some Juicy Junk in da Trunk, or any other sexually attractive (to the male in question) features make any woman more interested in having sex with one of us, than some Plain Jane, Mousy Mary looking lady.
Hmm but ain't that a sexy look too? I prefer that to Hoochie Mammas, myself!!
Reason for that is likely because I just finished a semi-stream of conscious and semi-planned diatribe about how the Bush Admin's War in Iraq is behind Iran's wet dream of having nukes of their very own (yes I basically gave up politics here, but I still dabble in ANALYSIS on a board or two.)
But anyway . . . here is my thesis, albeit less than elegantly told:
I am begining to believe that not only is the high % of assholes among the human race never likely to slack off, but prehaps may not even be an accident. It very well could be the result of some Darwinian Glitch, some ancient mutation in the genome; some junk in the collective DNA of the species; some bad code still found in the collective code of humanity.
Afterall, assholes are the cockaroches of the species, and as we all know, roaches are the most adapatable vermin out there; nature's champion surviors. So what does the survival traits of roaches have to do human (looking/seeming) assholes?
Not that this thought only came to me after reading the article I did, this past week; it has been part of my data set for decades. But I read something that triggered these old thoughts in a paper this week in an article about human mating and dating selections.
As I have suspected, and as proven (so say they) by some researchers, women are more likely to be attracted to the more seeming virile looking of men, when they are closer to ovulating, as opposed to being further away from that point in their cycles.
**Link to an article explaining this theory, not same one I read**
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/376321.stm
And as far as the alleged virility is concerned, what if there is some connection between seeming virility and some other traits? What if excessive levels of testosterone is more likely to produce brutish traits? Perhaps the unintended result of an excess of the male hormone very often leads to men who are . . . loud, pushy, grasping, greedy, destructive, overly aggressive, selfish and too fond of farting and fart jokes?
In other words, what if there is a connection between the superficial traits of seeming virility and those of the Common Human Male Asshole?
Hmm. That research supports the thought I have had for years. That (sorry ladies) there is a defect in the X chromosome that allows for women to look at a male asshole, ignore the brutish asshole traits (and attraction to farting and fart jokes), focus on the seeming virility, reproduce and pair with such males, thereby creating another generation of assholes (and eventually keeping divorce lawyers and psychologists and marriage counselors employed.)
And the cycle continues, on and on.
Oh and before I get hammered on by women for my statement about the defect on the X chromosome, let me say that firstly . . . ladies there has to be some biological reason for them assholes still being around after 10,000 years of human civilization. I do not mean it as insult but only as explaining a cruel trick of nature. Years and centuries and tens of centuries ago, a woman had a higher chance of being protected by a less evolved male. Survival depended less on verbal and reasoning skills, and more on being more beastly than whatever or whoever the male had to compete with, for scarce necessary resources.
But do we still live in that kind of world? Do we still need to protect and perpetuate (as primary traits), as a species, the traits that made for a perfectly suitable member of a tribe of prehistoric hunter gatherers, or do we need more thinkers and more thoughtful males, now? (I think every male, if not person, currently alive on the planet has some of the traits as secondary, in the code; that will never be bred out of us, I imagine, so nothing will be lost, it seems if we loose the asshole traits as primary traits except for Howard Stern Fans.)
Oh and further (if only to be fair) I will admit to the 'as bad if not worse' glitch on the Y chromosome:
There is not good reason for men to think that Pretty Women, or Women with Big Tits, or Wide Hips and some Juicy Junk in da Trunk, or any other sexually attractive (to the male in question) features make any woman more interested in having sex with one of us, than some Plain Jane, Mousy Mary looking lady.
Hmm but ain't that a sexy look too? I prefer that to Hoochie Mammas, myself!!
posted by Abstentus at 2:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home