The eventual Divorce settlement is certainly going to enrich both your ex-wife and the lawyers involved.
The ten solitudes of Toronto dating
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
Nah, if that ever happens she will get the half of the house that she paid for. Divorce settlements aren't all that painful when you marry a woman with her own career. It's you guys that marry stay-at-home housewives that face expensive divorces.The eventual Divorce settlement is certainly going to enrich both your ex-wife and the lawyers involved.
Hopefully for you she makes a great deal more than you otherwise the split does not have to be 50/50.Nah, if that ever happens she will get the half of the house that she paid for. Divorce settlements aren't all that painful when you marry a woman with her own career.
Hopefully for you as well in Canada the Judge can't say it may be no-fault but we all know whose fault it is so I've just found a reason without saying that's why to make it 65/35.
But then again we know you are really the Dos Equis man and know everything about everything.
Then you are failing by using birth control.Yes. It is my position that sexual relationships are unique, that in fact from an evolutionary standpoint the rest of our lives, all our thought and language, our physical being, our emotions, our desires, our culture and our abilities all exist only to serve the sexual relationship.
but this statement is so absurd as to be easy to discard, and shows you don't know shit about evolution.
umm this is like saying that gays fail by fucking in the assThen you are failing by using birth control.
If your argument is:umm this is like saying that gays fail by fucking in the ass
"my conduct is the result of an evolutionary imperative to have lots of offspring." both anal sex and birth control undermine or defeat your argument.
I have yet to see an argument that homosexuality is the result of evolutionary developments to maximize gene distribution. If you have I would really enjoy seeing it.
If your argument is "I like to do it", than the children or lack thereof is irrelevant.
Personally I am happy Fuji is avoiding having offspring.
I haven't read the whole thread but I guess the argument is "We all like to do it because we descend from a lot of people who liked to do it and had they not liked doing it there would be no me or you"If your argument is:
"my conduct is the result of an evolutionary imperative to have lots of offspring." both anal sex and birth control undermine or defeat your argument.
I have yet to see an argument that homosexuality is the result of evolutionary developments to maximize gene distribution. If you have I would really enjoy seeing it.
If your argument is "I like to do it", than the children or lack thereof is irrelevant.
Personally I am happy Fuji is avoiding having offspring.
Nope. Fuji goes way beyond that. He claims that cheating and having a large number of sexual partners comes from some evolutionary imperative.I haven't read the whole thread but I guess the argument is "We all like to do it because we descend from a lot of people who liked to do it and had they not liked doing it there would be no me or you"
I think anyways, because he expressed it backwards suggesting that sexual selection has an impact on evolution, when by definition it must be the reverse.
But his position is just in his mind. It simply ignores the current state of knowledge of evolutionary biology and its very complex interaction with human sexuality. It also ignores the facts we know about the subject to promote his theory.
And you accused me of getting causation reversed on evolutionary questions???Then you are failing by using birth control.
but this statement is so absurd as to be easy to discard, and shows you don't know shit about evolution.
Who we are was determined by a process of selection that ran for millions of years without birth control. During that time few set out to have children. They set out to have sex, the consequence if which was children. And sure, we're made in a way that makes us good parents too, we evolved to think kids are cute, and to respond to their cries, and to bond with them.
But you're failing to separate the mechanism that made us who we are from who we are. We evolved to love sex because that led to children, but who we are is that we love sex.
Actually rld sexual selection is both a product of evolution and a factor in natural selection. You wrongly view evolution as static, it's not, it's better understood as a dynamic process where things like sexual selection are both cause and effect in an ongoing chain of adaptation.Nope. Fuji goes way beyond that. He claims that cheating and having a large number of sexual partners comes from some evolutionary imperative.
I think anyways, because he expressed it backwards suggesting that sexual selection has an impact on evolution, when by definition it must be the reverse.
But his position is just in his mind. It simply ignores the current state of knowledge of evolutionary biology and its very complex interaction with human sexuality. It also ignores the facts we know about the subject to promote his theory.
Those who had more sexual partners produced more offspring and created descendents who desired more sexual partners. Evolution is the mechanism that made us who we are, it's the why, we are the what.
A self actualizing human desires multiple partners. It's who we are. We also hate being cheated on. That's why who we are is inherently sexually hypocritical. And I mean inherently.
You can't even speak the language properly.Actually rld sexual selection is both a product of evolution and a factor in natural selection. You wrongly view evolution as static, it's not, it's better understood as a dynamic process where things like sexual selection are both cause and effect in an ongoing chain of adaptation.
Evolution is the term for the process in general. It is a a theory, and a fact. Sexual selection is one small aspect of the process.
And the latest data, I know how much you like to ignore data, does not support your interpretation of it.
I am not sure I can count the factual and theoretical errors in this one short post. Amazing.And you accused me of getting causation reversed on evolutionary questions???
Who we are was determined by a process of selection that ran for millions of years without birth control. During that time few set out to have children. They set out to have sex, the consequence if which was children. And sure, we're made in a way that makes us good parents too, we evolved to think kids are cute, and to respond to their cries, and to bond with them.
But you're failing to separate the mechanism that made us who we are from who we are. We evolved to love sex because that led to children, but who we are is that we love sex.
I too am pretty sure you can't. You' re pretty good at confusing yourself though. You seem to miss the point of a theory, taking elements of definitions and statements too literally, confusing yourself in the process, then as a result missing the obvious while drawing ludicrous conclusions.I am not sure I can count the factual and theoretical errors in this one short post. Amazing.
You can quote all you like but in the end if you conclude that we are NOT the product of our ancestors sexual choices then you really are some sort of clown.
As usual you try to avoid any hard work and keep babbling, and suggest I said something I did not. We are all obviously the product of some of our ancestors sexual choices (not all) but that does not mean that there is a biological imperative for cheating.I too am pretty sure you can't. You' re pretty good at confusing yourself though. You seem to miss the point of a theory, taking elements of definitions and statements too literally, confusing yourself in the process, then as a result missing the obvious while drawing ludicrous conclusions.
You can quote all you like but in the end if you conclude that we are NOT the product of our ancestors sexual choices then you really are some sort of clown.
The latest research in the area has revealed a number of facts and data that invalidate your theory. But since you don't care about facts that does not matter to you.
You live in Fuji world, where the facts and reality the rest of us deal with don't matter.
And if by complexity you mean...the real world, yes I do concern myself with complexities.
Plainly. What's hard-wired is a desire to have as many sexual partners as possible, and also hardwired is a desire to prevent infidelity by your sexual partners. You can say cheating is not hardwired, but there are very few other ways to satisfy both of those desires.We are all obviously the product of some of our ancestors sexual choices (not all) but that does not mean that there is a biological imperative for cheating.
I'm sure that you've misunderstood the research sufficiently to convince yourself that's true.The latest research in the area has revealed a number of facts and data that invalidate your theory.
There is a biological imperative to have many sexual partners. There is a biological imperative to limit infidelity by your partner. Cheating is one of the few ways of actualizing both desires simultaneously. Does that make it hardwired? Cheating in and of itself is a complex behavior, nothing that complex is hardwired. However, the more basic desires that are hardwired gives you a strong incentive to cheat.1. Is there a biological imperative for cheating? If so, how and why?
If you're a male you already know the answer to that question and don't need to ask it. Seriously. Some men may suppress their desires for the sake of their relationship, but all men have them, and all will freely admit to that if they're being honest. You know it. I know it. There's not much to debate there, at least not in the case of men.2. You say humans desire multiple sexual partners. Do you mean over a lifetime in a serial non-overlapping way, or in an overlapping fashion? Please clarify the claim.
It's a little less clear for women, it may be they have pretty much identical desires to men but suppress them, or it may be that women have an imperative to seek out multiple partners, but not necessarily maximizing quantity the way men do, but focus instead on a smaller number of higher quality partners. But they still desire more than one.
I never made that claim, nor does my argument depend on it. I simply said that evolution resulted in factors that provide an incentive to cheat: A desire for multiple partners, coupled with a desire to limit infidelity by those sexual partners. That does not require cheating, but it does lead to the following general strategies:3. Do you think you are in a position to say evolution was driven more by cheating behaviour than other forms of sexual behavior?
1. Suppress the desire for multiple partners and stay monogamous, or
2. Suppress the desire to limit infidelity by partners and have an open relationship, or
3. Suppress neither desire and accept sexual hypocrisy
Option #3 is the only fully self actualizing strategy, the other two both involve suppressing innate desires. Now cheating is not the only way to implement strategy #3, another option would be to become so successful and so desirable that you can force multiple sexual partners into exclusive relationships. For example, in some society men take multiple wives openly, and much more rarely there have been cases of societies where women do that. That would be an example of strategy #3 that does not involve cheating, but obviously for most people most of the time the easiest way to self actualize is to cheat.
From an evolutionary perspective, all of our behaviours, traits, cultures, etc., exist to serve the sexual (reproductive) relationships. I know you're just waiting to misrepresent that one, so notice the italics, and make sure you don't misrepresent what I've said. In particular pay careful attention to the word "persepctive", and note that there are many different perspectives from which you can assess a human life. In this discussion we're looking from an evolutionary perspective. If I were looking at it from my own perspective the answer is going to be different. And so on.4. Is it your position that human lives exist only to serve sexual relations?
Wrong again. When you participate in the rational debate I always answer you directly and fully. Unfortunately most of the time you descend into childish tripe. However here you're asking reasonable questions so of course I'm willing to answer.I predict you won't answer directly.
The clear point is that you don't have a first clue about what the current research is telling us. You don't even understand the research from 30 years ago.Plainly. What's hard-wired is a desire to have as many sexual partners as possible, and also hardwired is a desire to prevent infidelity by your sexual partners. You can say cheating is not hardwired, but there are very few other ways to satisfy both of those desires.
I'm sure that you've misunderstood the research sufficiently to convince yourself that's true.
Show me the evidence that we are hard wired to have as many sexual partners as possible.
Here are some facts that show your theory only exists in your mind. Now sit down and pay attention because some of this stuff is very recent so you are surely not aware of it:
1) the latest study on infidelity carried out through the Kinsey Institute via two large universities, one in the US and one in Canada pegs the rate of infidelity at less than 25% for both sexes (23 and 19 IIRC). Thus invalidating your claim for universalism for infidelity. Of course this doesn't even begin to say anything about the fact that we don't know enough about he mating habits of our ancestors to draw any Darwinin evolutionary conclusions about them.
2) the latest studies show that more intelligent people have both less sex and less sex partners on average. Now, I am the first to concede that measuring or trying to measure intelligence is a quagmire, but as best we can, and certainly with respect to both education and monetary success this seems to hold true. It also starts as young as 15 or so if the tracking is as good as we think it is. Since almost everyone believes that higher intelligent is a positive trait in Darwinian (and even Lamarkian) terms it completely undermines your theory.
3) Many people who study in this area (which is a not well understood area) are now suggesting that what is called the "slow historical strategy" is the one that has been adapted by primates for perhaps millions of years now, and seems to include humans. It includes having less children and less partners but more resources to take care of the ones you do. Most of the current modelling and evidence supports this conclusion. There have been some great articles written about this recently. There are some deviations found in bonobos, but the truth is that bonobos have sex for many reasons other than reproduction so they really are not as big an outlier as some suggest.
There are no current studies or modelling that support what you say Fuji. You just choose to engage in a pattern of conduct and are not man enough to own it and need some false scientific explanation to make yourself happy. It is a case of you trying (unsuccessfully) to project your own emotional deficiencies onto evolutionary biology. But, as usual, you have failed.
It is stunning the shit you make up out of whole cloth. You live in a fantasy world that does not come into contact with the real one.It's a little less clear for women, it may be they have pretty much identical desires to men but suppress them, or it may be that women have an imperative to seek out multiple partners, but not necessarily maximizing quantity the way men do, but focus instead on a smaller number of higher quality partners. But they still desire more than one.
I never made that claim, nor does my argument depend on it. I simply said that evolution resulted in factors that provide an incentive to cheat: A desire for multiple partners, coupled with a desire to limit infidelity by those sexual partners. That does not require cheating, but it does lead to the following general strategies:
1. Suppress the desire for multiple partners and stay monogamous, or
2. Suppress the desire to limit infidelity by partners and have an open relationship, or
3. Suppress neither desire and accept sexual hypocrisy
Option #3 is the only fully self actualizing strategy, the other two both involve suppressing innate desires. Now cheating is not the only way to implement strategy #3, another option would be to become so successful and so desirable that you can force multiple sexual partners into exclusive relationships. For example, in some society men take multiple wives openly, and much more rarely there have been cases of societies where women do that. That would be an example of strategy #3 that does not involve cheating, but obviously for most people most of the time the easiest way to self actualize is to cheat.
From an evolutionary perspective, all of our behaviours, traits, cultures, etc., exist to serve the sexual (reproductive) relationships. I know you're just waiting to misrepresent that one, so notice the italics, and make sure you don't misrepresent what I've said. In particular pay careful attention to the word "persepctive", and note that there are many different perspectives from which you can assess a human life. In this discussion we're looking from an evolutionary perspective. If I were looking at it from my own perspective the answer is going to be different. And so on.
when you are going out every saturday night, does your imaginary wife say "Have a good night" or "give it to her to good in a life affirming way"?Childish tripe.
I'm going out with that immigrant girl again tonight, hope your Saturday night is as enjoyable as mine's going to be!
LOL. Yes one wonders whether the little guy actually notices that he trips himself up repeatedly. Perhaps wifey is a blow-up.when you are going out every saturday night, does your imaginary wife say "Have a good night" or "give it to her to good in a life affirming way"?
