|Men, women, and different races
are different partly because of our environment
It should be obvious that plants and animals evolve for their
environment. For example, the plants that live in the desert
have adapted to low levels of water,
and almost everybody has noticed that young boys enjoy playing outdoors,
even in the rain and mud, whereas young girls prefer to stay home and play
with dolls. However, I don't think many people realize that this adaptation
occurs to all of our emotions. Each
group of people ends up liking the visual images, weather, foods, and other
aspects of their particular environment.
Consider what life was like to men in prehistoric Europe. The men spent
most days hunting for food. Which of the men would be most successful in
that environment? It would be the men who enjoyed the sensations of that
environment; specifically, the visual images of the forest and the snow,
the taste of animal meat, and the climate. It was also the men who were
best able to notice patterns in the way animals live and behave. It was
also the men who could work together in teams, often while quiet and concentrating
on their job. It was also the men who were the best at finding their way
home after hunting. This favored the men who had a natural tendency to
observe the weather, the position of the sun, the shadows, the trees, the
rivers, and other aspects of their environment. It also required the men
to make tools, and this favored the men who had a natural tendency
to notice and understand the characteristics of wood, rocks, metal, and
A man would have been less successful in that prehistoric era if he
didn't like his particular weather conditions or being outdoors, or if
he became upset if he got muddy or wet, or if he had less of an interest
in observing the animals, forest, and rivers, or if he preferred to spend
his time with his children or chatting with women.
By comparison, the prehistoric women tended to remain "home" with women,
children, and babies. Women didn't need to be concerned much about the
weather, or the position of the sun, or the shadows, or the lives of animals.
They didn't need muscular arms, the ability to throw rocks, or the ability
to carry large amounts of weight. They needed to be able to sit and use
their hands, so they needed a padded butt and a lot of coordination in
Since women spent their lives with other women and children, the women
who were best adapted to that type of life were those who enjoyed chatting
with other women as they worked, and who enjoyed the noise and interruptions
of children. The women worked independently, not in teams, so they
didn't need any ability or desire to be team members.
The Africans who were living around the Sahara desert would have developed
an attraction to their environment; specifically, high temperatures,
bright sunlight, and open spaces with sparse vegetation. I would expect
them to consider the colors and patterns of sand and rock to be more relaxing
than greens of a northern forest, or the white of snow. I would expect
Eskimos to consider large expanses of white snow to be peaceful and relaxing.
Men are associated with the color blue,
and women are associated with pink,
but why is this? Monkeys and humans may associate pink
with females because of the pink color of female sexual organs, but why
are men associated with the color blue?
Furthermore, notice that the blue is normally a light
blue, not a dark blue or
up reddish blue.
It's possible that light blue was one of the few pigments that
our primitive ancestors could create, and therefore it became associated
with men simply because of the lack of options, but I suspect that men
are associated with light blue because that is the color
of the sky. That color may be soothing to men because our ancestors
spent most of their time "outdoors", and the most dominant color
all over the planet, during all seasons of the year, is the blue of the
sky. If we could see farther into the ultraviolet, the sky might seem more
purple, in which case we might associate a light purple with men.
The men and women who were best adapted to life thousands of years ago
were those who enjoyed the visual images,
sounds, and smells of their particular environment, which was the "outdoors"
for men and being "home" for women.
Women enjoy sunsets, but I rarely hear a woman comment on how
beautiful the clouds are at other times of the day. I consider clouds to
be decorations in the sky. Blue skies are interesting once in a
while, but they are boring. I think clouds are pretty, not just during
sunset or sunrise. Fog is also nice once in a while, and I enjoy storms
Fog and storms are irritating in our modern world because we don't design
cities or transportation systems for the weather. As a result, storms and
fog cause flooding, traffic accidents, and interruptions with electricity.
However, if we were to design a city to deal with the weather, then I think
a lot of men would enjoy the storms and fog.
I would design a city so that some of the social areas are at the tops
of buildings so that we could get wonderful views of lightning, hail, snow,
sunrises, sunsets, clouds, and rain. I think a lot of boys and men would
enjoy going up there to watch the storms, but how many girls or women would
Why are children so trusting
“Here little boy, have some candy!”
Have you ever wondered why parents have to teach
their children to be afraid of strangers? The reason is because human emotions
evolved to fit our environment, and our ancestors lived in an environment
in which the children could trust the
adults. The children didn't need to be afraid of being raped, or having
items stolen from them, or being kidnapped.
Today children are taught to be afraid of everybody. Some girls are
taught how to poke an adult man in his eyeballs and crush his testicles.
Children today are also subjected to endless attempts by businessmen to
manipulate them into desiring certain products. Children are also subjected
to toilet humor, sarcasm, psychotic behavior, and sexually titillating
advertisements and television programs.
Another interesting characteristic of children is that they fall asleep
more easily around adults who are talking, whereas adults prefer a more
quiet environment. Humans evolved in close contact with other people,
and children would fall asleep while adults were still talking. Not surprisingly,
young children do not like sleeping in silent, isolated bedrooms. They
prefer falling asleep around adults who are talking. To a young child,
the conversations are soothing, not irritating.
The reason children sleep so easily around noise is because children
thousands of years ago who had problems falling asleep around adults didn't
survive as well as those who enjoyed falling asleep in such conditions.
To rephrase that, the children who enjoyed their environment were
better adapted to life.
The wealthy parents who believe that they are pampering their children
by providing them with large, luxurious, soundproof, isolated bedrooms,
are not necessarily doing their children any favors. They may be putting
their children through psychological torture.
We have to decide what we want the human race to become. If we put babies
in their own bedrooms, some of them will be better adapted to that isolated
situation, and they will be happier and sleep better. If we restrict reproduction
to those people, then eventually all babies will be happy to sleep in their
own room by themselves. If, instead, we make smaller homes and put the
young children together in the same bedroom, then the children who enjoy
being with one another will be the better adapted. The smaller homes would
also be more economically practical.
Up until recently, nature has determined what humans like and dislike,
but now we are in control. We now have to make decisions on what we want
the human race to become.
freedom; humans wish
Animals do as they please; humans must control themselves.
Animals struggle to satisfy their cravings; humans often struggle
to suppress their cravings. Animals have the freedom to do whatever
they want; humans must reprimand themselves and treat themselves like a
Animals don't exert any significant control over themselves or one another.
The reason animals can follow their emotions is because nature eliminates
those that are not well adapted to their environment. During prehistoric
times, nature was doing this with humans, also, and so our primitive ancestors
were very well adapted to their environment. They had the freedom to do
whatever they pleased.
During the past few thousand years, we have dramatically changed our
environment, but our emotions have not changed accordingly. The end result
is that all of us have to occasionally control our emotions. We cannot
do as we please.
Since each of us is unique, each of us differs in how poorly adapted
we are to this modern world. Some people have an extremely difficult time
sitting in school classrooms or following orders at work. Some people cannot
control their craving to grab at other people's material items, and a significant
percentage of the population has trouble controlling their consumption
of food and alcohol.
We are now suppressing nature, and we have to decide what we want the
human race to evolve into. Consider the issue of working in an office.
There are differences among us in terms of the type of office environment
that we perfer to work in. If we force a particular style on everybody,
then some people will be happy, and others will be miserable. If we allow
different businesses to have different styles of offices, then more people
will be satisfied.
|I consider this style of cubicle to be dreary and unpleasant. It reminds
me of the chicken farms in which cages are packed on top of one another.
I think business executives promote this style of cubicle partly because
of the low cost, and partly because they have the attitude of a king and
consider us to be their peasants.
||The television program 20/20 recently
interviewed the man who created this Internet shoe business, Zappos. He
and his employees praise this style of office as being "fun" and "creative",
but I consider this style to be noisy and visually unpleasant. I might
have liked it when I was eight years old, but not as an adult.
It might appear that the best policy is to allow variations in offices
so that we can please as many people as possible, but that policy is not
practical. The reason is because if we don't set standards for human behavior
and restrict reproduction to the people who fit those standards, then people
will slowly develop more variations in their mental qualities, and
it will eventually get to the point at which everybody wants a different
style of office, different food, different clothing, different decorations
in the city, and different social activities. Everybody will develop such
unique behavior that it will become impossible for people to form a stable,
Furthermore, if we don't restrict reproduction, we will eventually become
incompatible, also. We already have some midgets and dwarves that are about
half the size of normal people, and there are some people who are extremely
tall. There are also some extremely thin and extremely massive people,
and some people are very good-looking while others are extremely ugly.
If we don't set standards on what the human body should
be, then the future generations will have an incredible variety of sizes,
appearances, scents, and postures. This will create a problem in regards
to producing chairs, bicycles, airline seats, trains, houses, and bathrooms.
The unusually short, tall, fat, and deformed people will also have an increasingly
difficult time finding a job. Yes, the "micro-midgets" can repair circuit
boards, but is this really the best policy for the human race?
Incidentally, some midgets complain that the word "midget" is degrading;
they want us to refer to them as "little people" instead. I suppose
when there are lots of even tinier midgets in the future, they will complain
that we should call them "micro people" rather than "micro midgets". Why
would they care which words we use? Before you try to answer that question,
consider that fat people also complain that they don't like words such
as "fat" or "obese". They want to be referred to as "plus sized", "plump",
"large", or "robust".
As I mentioned here in regards to
the parents who complain about the word "retard", people don't like these
words because it reminds them of how miserable their situation is. Nobody
would choose to be a midget, or fat, or a retard, and no parent would choose
to have children with those problems. Both the people with those conditions
and their parents are suffering, and they foolishly assume that
by changing the words, their suffering will be reduced.
We are not going to help midgets by calling them "little people".
We have to change our policies towards life. We are cruel, not loving,
when we bring people into this world who are defective and who will never
enjoy life properly. We are torturing those people. Furthermore,
they often end up irritating us because they are perpetually unhappy, and
some of them become bitter, angry, and envious.
The only practical policy is to set standards for the human
mind and body, and restrict reproduction to the people who are closest
to that ideal. This will eventually result in a world in which the people
are nice-looking, healthy, similar in size and shape, and truly well adapted
to their environment. They will love the offices that they work in, and
they will enjoy the foods, and they will love the decorations in their
city and the layout of their parks. They will be compatible with other
people also, rather than whine that they need the freedom to be different.
They will feel as if the world was created just for them. They will have
the freedom to do whatever they please. They will experience a life that
we can only dream of.
Some mental disorders may
have been valuable
Mental disorders are a problem in our modern world, but some
of them would have been meaningless or an advantage in prehistoric
times. For example, consider the men who are never satisfied with what
they have. In this modern world, they try to relieve their endless misery
by struggling like maniacs to get more money, or win more sports contests,
or become more famous. They think that they are happier than the rest of
us, but from my point of view, they are acquiring enormous amounts of things
that have no actual value to their lives.
In prehistoric times, this particular mental disorder would have been
an advantage. The behavior of perpetually miserable men in prehistoric
times would have been exactly as it is today; namely, struggling like maniacs
in a futile attempt to end their misery, but they would have been struggling
for items that were truly valuable to them, such as tools, food,
and furs. They never would have been able to acquire excessive amounts
of anything. Therefore, this particular mental disorder would have caused
these men to be more successful in regards to surviving and reproducing
than those who were more normal. This could explain why there are so many
men today who put an incredible amount of time and effort into collecting
quantities of money, houses, land, trophies, status items, and boats.
Nature doesn't care whether we are happy. The competitive battle for
life only cares that we survive and reproduce successfully. Therefore,
if a particular mental disorder helps a person to survive and reproduce,
then it is an advantage from the point of view of nature, even if it makes
his life miserable.
The same concept applies to the women who are never happy with the amount
of money that their husbands are providing. These women are an irritation
in this modern world by forever whining that they need more shoes, a larger
home, and more money, but in prehistoric times, these women would also
have been an advantage. They would have been constantly pushing their husband
to get more food, more furs, and more tools.
Our environment has changed, and as a result, the mental qualities that
were tolerable or beneficial long ago are not necessarily desirable today.
Another example are the people with insane cravings to have everything
In today's world, they are wasting a lot of their time on idiotic activities,
such as ensuring all of their shoes are properly aligned in their closet,
but people had only a few possessions in prehistoric times, so a craving
for orderliness would not have been a problem, and it may have been an
The people with insane cravings to clean themselves and their
possessions are also a nuisance today, and they waste resources, but during
prehistoric times, nobody could clean anything excessively. As a result,
the cleaning fanatics may have actually had an advantage over the sloppier
people. They may have had fewer illnesses, and fewer bites by fleas and
Some mental disorders may not have been an advantage, but they would
have been less significant, or nearly harmless. For example, the problem
that we describe as ADD may not have been an advantage, but it may not
have caused much trouble, either. In the world today, these people are
annoying, and often destructive, because they cannot concentrate on their
jobs, relax, or work well in teams. They are always doing something to
distract themselves from their misery. Children with this problem can be
very destructive in a modern house, but in prehistoric times, the children
were outside most of the time, and there were very few material items for
them to destroy. Their restless behavior would have resulted in them running
around with other children, climbing trees, and chasing frogs. They would
not necessarily have been an irritation to the adults.
An adult with ADD would not necessarily have been a problem during prehistoric
times, either. Since people in that era were perpetually hungry and always
in need of tools, a man with ADD may have put his energy into chasing after
animals and making tools. His inability to concentrate on a job or work
well in teams would not have mattered much in that era because their "work"
did not require much concentration or teamwork compared to the jobs of
today. A man with ADD is capable of chasing after animals with a sharp
stick, and he can also scrape fat off of a fur. If he got bored while he
was scraping a fur, and switched to sharpening a stick, and then got bored
and switched to some other task, his inability to concentrate on a task
would not necessarily hurt him or anybody else. As long as he eventually
completed his tasks, it would not matter that he was doing his tasks in
an irrational manner.
The human race is producing an incredible number of mentally defective
people, but why? Why didn't nature eliminate mental problems? Why didn't
evolution favor humans with higher quality minds? I think the reason the
human mind is so defective and so crude is because during prehistoric times,
this is all we needed. Evolution gives us the bare minimum
that we need.
Our environment has changed considerably, and the minimum necessary
during prehistoric times is no longer acceptable. We have to raise standards
for people and restrict reproduction to the people with the higher quality
minds. People today need to be able to work together better; form more
stable, more honest, and more fair relationships; and be able to deal with
access to large amounts of food and material items.
Ideally, we would study human
If we could study people in the same unbiased manner that we
study animals, we would notice that children, teenagers, and stupid adults
follow their emotions more closely than intelligent adults. Therefore,
children and stupid adults can help us to understand our emotions and our
similarity to animals, whereas intelligent adults can help us to understand
how our intellect allows us to control our emotions and override them.
Unfortunately, it's difficult to study human emotions because most people
seem embarrassed and afraid to be honest about their emotions. They would
have trouble admitting that they sometimes want to grab at items, or that
they find some young girls sexually appealing. I think one reason that
people are afraid to be honest about their emotions is that we tend to
follow the crowd, and since the crowd is very secretive about emotional
feelings, we want to be secretive, also.
However, I think that some people are afraid to be honest about their
emotions because they have trouble controlling themselves, and they react
by trying to ignore their emotions. I see this problem with alcoholics.
Specifically, some alcoholics are afraid that they will lose control of
themselves and start drinking again, and so they go out of their way to
avoid thinking about or being near alcohol.
I have no fear of alcohol because I know that I can control myself around
it. I also have no fear of admitting that some photos of young girls are
sexually attractive, probably because I have lived long enough to realize
that I don't have a problem controlling myself. I also have no fear of
being around material items, money, or even gold.
Imagine if everybody in the world could openly discuss their emotions.
This would allow us to create a database that would help us to understand
the human mind in a lot of ways. I think we would discover a lot of interesting
aspects of the human mind. For example, if we were to show photos of landscapes
to different people and accurately determine their emotional response,
I think that we would discover that there are subtle differences in which
photos we find most attractive, and why we are attracted to them.
I think we would also discover that there are differences between men and
women, and there are differences depending upon which area of the world
your ancestors evolved in.
I, for example, spent most of my childhood in Santa Barbara, which is
very dry. Although this is an interesting landscape, all throughout my
childhood I was annoyed by the heat, the brown color of the dead grass,
and endless sunshine. When relatives would visit us, they would frequently
make remarks about the brown color, and the lack of green. When I saw pictures
of forests and mountains of Europe, I was immediately attracted to them.
I also prefer to be too cold rather than too hot. I don't think any of
this is a coincidence. I think that the people who grew up in Europe evolved
for their climate and their land, and the people who grew up in the Sahara
desert evolved an attraction to the desert.
Many photos are attractive, but certain photos are emotionally
satisfying to me, such as the
to the right. It's not because of the colors. At the bottom of this
I put a photo of a Scottish farm that has even more of that emotional appeal
to me, but it doesn't have those colors. And here
is a photo that is mostly green but it also gives me that same pleasant
After many years of looking at photos and the world around me, I have
come to the conclusion that I find those photos relaxing because of the
angle of the sun. However, it is the evening sun, not the morning
sun that I find relaxing.
I suspect that the reason that I find photos of the evening sun so relaxing
is because they make me feel as if I am walking
home after working all day. Men in Europe thousands of years
ago would see the sun like this after hunting or farming during the day and
walking back to their families. In other words, I think my mind associates
that particular visual image with the happy feelings of finishing work
and going back home to have dinner with family and friends.
A lot of land areas are interesting, such as these
areas of the Scottish landscape, or fascinating, such as these
photos of mineral
deposits near volcanoes, but they evoke different emotions. Some of
the photos of barren areas evoke sadness and loneliness. I prefer a few
trees scattered around, but not palm trees. Palm trees are interesting,
but I find other styles of trees more emotionally satisfying. Is any of
this a coincidence? I don't think so. I suspect that there are people in
Scotland who love their cold, barren landscape, and that the people who
evolved in tropical areas perfer palm trees over the trees of the northern
I also love fog, lightning, hail, rain, and snow -- as long
as I don't have to drive an automobile during that type of weather. I think
a damp, moist, foggy day is a nice treat once in a while. I also love creeks,
and being able to walk out onto the water, as in the photo
to the right.
A database of the photos, music, foods, and clothing that we are attracted
to would also show us how our tastes change according to our moods and
as we grow older. When we are disappointed, for example, we might be attracted
to different types of photos or music compared to when we are happy. When
we are young, we might be attracted to some things simply because they
are unusual and grab our attention. As we grow older, we develop a better
idea of what we actually like.
Honesty would show our animal
For another example of how an analysis of our emotions could
help us, I think it would help men and women form better relationships.
At the moment, we have very little understanding of ourselves or the opposite
sex. I think it would help people tremendously to understand our animal
qualities. Imagine all men and women being honest about what they feel
towards men, children, relationships, and life. We would find that all
men are very similar to other men, and all women are very similar to other
women, and we would also discover that we are very similar to animals.
Consider the sexual behavior of animals that engage in sexual intercourse.
Although different species are slightly different, the "typical" male and
female animals do not have strong attractions to one another, and they
do not form close relationships. When a female becomes fertile, she must
experience something similar to what humans experience, which we might
describe as a sensitivity in her vagina. However, the females have a strong
resistance to sex, so in order for her to submit to sex, a male has to
titillate her with some type of courtship procedure. Those procedures seem
idiotic to us, and each animal has a slightly different procedure, but
they all have one thing in common. Specifically, by resisting the males,
the female is forcing them to prove to her that he has a lot of stamina
and strength, is in good health, and doesn't quit easily. The males that
have to fight with one another for females are also proving this.
If a male can titillate a female, her resistance to him will be momentarily
suppressed, and she will hold still for intercourse, and enjoy it to some
extent, but she still retains her emotional craving to resist the male,
so the male has to grab her with his arms or bite her on the back of her
neck. From the point of view of the female, it is partly sex and partly rape.
As soon as the sex act is complete, she reverts to her normal condition
and wants to avoid sexual contact. If the male is still holding onto her,
she might display aggression to scare him away.
The male and female animals have a very crude "relationship". The females
have momentary sensations in their vagina that are similar to having an
itch that they want relieved, and the males become sensitive in their penis
and want to rub it again something warm and soft. Neither of them understand
what is happening. They are just mindlessly following crude emotional cravings.
Nature doesn't care if they enjoy sex or each other.
It may seem as if animals have nothing in common with humans, but the
courtship procedure of humans is just an intelligent version of what we
see monkeys and dogs doing. The primary difference between animals and
humans is that animals go through courtship procedures only when the females
are fertile, which may be only once a year, whereas female humans are fertile
throughout the year, and so our courtship procedures are continuous.
To understand how much like an animal we are, consider what our courtship
procedures should be in this modern era. In most nations, especially
America, there are a wide variety of religions, political views, languages,
and lifestyles. Therefore, part of our courtship should be similar to a
interview. We should ask one another questions and try to determine
if we are compatible. We should ask potential partners about their use
of alcohol and drugs, whether they like to go to Star Trek conventions,
how often they play video games, whether they are some style of vegetarian, and other questions.
Ideally, we would feel comfortable asking such questions and
such questions. The older women are somewhat tolerant of interviews because
they seem to realize that they don't have many years remaining to find
a husband, but younger women become irritated by questions. The younger
women behave very similar to monkeys and dogs. They want the males to chase
after them and titillate them with gifts, compliments, and jokes. They
want to be entertained, not interviewed, and they want the entertainment
to continue day after day after day.
In prehistoric times, this crude courtship procedure was practical.
By preferring the men who gave them gifts, the women were forcing the men
to prove that they were capable of finding food and making tools. By preferring
the men who could entertain them for days on end, they were forcing the
men to show that they are in good health, have a nice personality, have
stamina, and don't quit easily.
This crude courtship procedure works in small, homogenous primitive
societies in which everybody knows one another and in which nature is killing
the defective people, but it doesn't work in modern societies because we
are chaotic mixtures of people from different races and nations, and many
people are mentally and physically defective. In this world, we need to
be more serious when looking for a spouse.
A woman's natural tendency is to trust men and assume that if a man
is giving her a gift, it is because he earned that gift, and if he is important
society, it is because he earned his position. During prehistoric times,
men didn't become successful through murder, nepotism, inheritances, crime
networks, bribery, lotteries, royalties, or investments. Today women have
to analyze the men and pass judgment on their value.
Furthermore, compatibility is more important today because we have a
lot more leisure time, and we have a much wider variety of activities to
choose from, and we live longer. Men and women spend more time together
today so we need to be more concerned about finding someone who is compatible
with us in regards to how we spend our leisure time, how we sleep, and
how we eat.
Our courtship procedures should be more serious, but young men and women
behave like animals. Young men pursue women that they find physically attractive,
and their primary reason for chasing after them is because their penis
develops a craving to rub against something warm and soft. They don't spend
much time thinking about compatibility, marriage, children, venereal disease,
or relationships. They are behaving like a dog that is chasing after a
If we could read the minds of a teenage boy as he looks at girls, we
would find that he is focusing on their physical qualities, not
their mental qualities. We would find him thinking about touching the girls
and having sex, not thinking what it would be like to live with the girls.
We would not find him contemplating the issue of which of the girls would
make a better mother, or which of them would be more compatible in regards
to their sleeping habits, leisure habits, and eating habits.
If we could take the images that we create in our mind and put them
onto a TV screen, we would find teenage boys are visualizing themselves
grabbing a girl, touching her, and having sex. We would not find images
in which he projects himself into the future and visualizes himself with
his wife. He would not be trying to figure out what his future would be
like as her husband, and what it would be like to raise children with her,
have dinner with her, and spend leisure time with her. Instead, he would
be having very simple fantasies of sex. Those visual images would closely
resemble the television documentaries that show male animals grabbing females
and having sex, except that the teenage boys would not be fantasizing about
biting the girl on the back of her neck.
If we could read the mind of a teenage girl when she is around boys,
we would find that she is not analyzing any of the men in regards to their
value to society, honesty, responsibility, skills, intelligence, or ability
to control their alcohol consumption. We would find that she is not
looking for a husband. Instead, we would find her fantasizing that several
of the men will make her giggle, give her gifts, and give her compliments.
We would find her fantasizing about being the center of attention of lots
of men. She fantasizes about having a lot of men struggling to please
her, and she doesn't have much concern about the quality of the men. She
is not analyzing the men. Rather, she is passively and submissively
for a man to come to her and titillate her. She is behaving like
a flower that waits for bees. In this modern world, this is a ridiculous
method for a woman to find a husband.
A female animal wants a male only briefly to satisfy her sexual craving,
and then she chases the male away. Female animals do not have much of an
attraction to males. With female humans, it is not after sex that they
lose interest in the male; it is after they have a baby. A woman's
primary interest in life is babies, not men, so as soon as they
have a baby, their focus shifts to their baby, and their husband takes
the role of a provider of food and other items.
The intense craving that women have for babies can be seen with women
who don't have the ability to control themselves, such as the women
who cut open pregnant women to steal their unborn babies, and the women
who steal newborn babies. Yesterday, 6 August 2012, another
woman was caught trying to steal a newborn baby from a hospital.
We can also see the intense cravings that women have for babies by watching
the way they react to babies. For example, when a woman has a baby,
she will proudly show the baby to her friends, and she will let them hold
and kiss the baby. However, she will not proudly pass her husband to her
friends so that they can take turns hugging and kissing him. Women have
a much stronger attraction to babies than to adult men.
It's also important to note that women want babies to play
with and titillate themselves with. They consider the baby as
a toy; as an entertainment device. Their emotions are not
concerned about what happens to the child. An example of this attitude
are the women who want babies even though they have no ability to properly
take care of them, such as the homeless woman in the
photo. Another example are the young or stupid girls who have babies
even though they don't have a husband or any way of supporting a child.
Sarah Palin's daughter is an example.
To a woman's emotions, a baby is a toy to play with, not a young human.
Likewise, men regard women as toys for sex. People who are unable to control
their emotions, perhaps because of stupidity or mental disorders, will
reproduce like animals with no regard to what happens to any of their children.
This behavior is acceptable for animals and primitive humans, but humans
today need a certain amount of intelligence, and we need the ability to
think about issues and control our
emotional cravings. Both men and women today need to regard babies as the
next generation of humans. We need to be concerned about raising children
who will become productive members of society. Nobody should have a right
to produce children, especially when they cannot support them.
It's not easy to figure out what is going on inside the minds of other
people, but it seems that some of the marriages between stupid people fail
because the woman slowly loses interest in the man after she has a baby,
or the man slowly loses interest in her as he gets tired of having sex
with her. From the point of view of nature, it makes no difference if men
and women form stable, pleasant relationships, or if their children are
happy. All that matters is that we successfully reproduce.
A lot of people are very possessive of their spouse, and they boast
that their possessiveness is due to a strong, loving bond between them,
but I think that their possessiveness is actually a crude, animal-like
I think it is the same type of possessiveness that we have for our toothbrush.
We do not want other people to use our toothbrush, but that's not because
we have a loving relationship with our toothbrush. We simply do not like
other people touching our posssessions, especially not if their body fluids
get on it.
The spouses that are intensely jealous and possessive of one another
are treating their spouse as a toothbrush or as a slave. I would describe
that as a selfish,
animal relationship. Some people are so crude
that they become violent if their spouse tries to leave. That is
not a loving relationship. That is like a kidnapper and his victim.
Many men have killed their wife or their wife's lover when they discovered
their wife was sexually involved with another man, but how can we justify
that behavior? If a friend were to lose interest in you, should you have
the right to kill him or his new friend? This behavior is incredibly selfish
Supposedly, some women are afraid to leave their husband because they
worry about being killed by him. That is the type of fear that we expect
with gang members who want to quit the gang and become honest, but they
are afraid to leave the gang because they worry that the gang will kill
him to prevent him from giving the police information about them. These
are not loving relationships. These are incredibly crude and abusive relationships.
The point of these past few paragraphs is that if we could get a better
understanding of our emotions, we would discover that humans behave very
similar to animals. That information would help us to understand
and control some of our idiotic cravings. For example, I think that men
would do a better job of finding women if they were not pursuing women
while in a state of sexual frustration. It would be better if men masturbated
before meeting women. If we meet women while we are sexually frustrated,
women that we would normally have no interest in will seem much more appealing.
It is like shopping for food while extremely hungry. A man will make better
decisions about women when he doesn't have his sexual cravings trying to
influence his behavior.
Understanding our emotions can also help us design more appropriate
social and recreational activities. For example, I think we should reduce
- or eliminate! - the emphasis on winning
sports events and collecting trophies in order to stop encouraging
the crude behavior of struggling to be the top monkey on the hierarchy.
I think sports events should be designed for entertainment, socializing,
and exercise, not to satisfy our craving for status.
We need to create social activities to help men and women meet and get
to know one another, but should not design these activities to satisfy
our emotions. If we create the activities that we find emotionally pleasing,
then women will create the activities that allow them to be the center
of attention, and men will create activities that give them the greatest
opportunity of getting sex.
We have to control our emotions and use our intellect to create activities
that help us to get to know one another and determine our compatibility.
For example, as I mentioned in my description of "Singles
Pageants," women enjoy being the center of attention, but we gain nothing
from beauty pageants. We have to do more than look at the women;
we need to get to know them, and the women have to get to know the
men. We need to design activities that will give women the opportunity
to be the center of attention while at the same time providing us with
the opportunity to interact and get to know one another.
Our ancestors didn't have to worry much about compatibility since they
were all closely related to one another and they didn't have much to do
in their life other than look for food and shelter, and then sit around
a campfire. Today we need to analyze one another to determine who we are
compatible with. Unfortunately, most people are putting more effort into
analyzing houses or refrigerators.
affect our evolution
Your emotions, including what you like and dislike in
regards to colors, foods, textures, and sounds, are influenced by the environment
ancestors evolved for. This
concept can help you to understand yourself, and it can also help you understand
that we are going to influence the future of the
human race by the environment we create for ourselves.
Thousands of years ago people lived in clean, quiet, and beautiful areas.
Today we live in noisy, ugly cities that are full of crime, secrecy, deception,
fear, manipulation, toilet humor, and graffiti. If we maintain these disgusting
conditions for thousands of years,
humans will evolve to fit it because the people who are less well adapted
will not be as happy or as successful in reproducing.
Male and female animals
are almost identical
There are only slight differences between the physical and
mental abilities and behavior
a male and female animal, such as that the
females are usually smaller.
||Male and female wolves are almost identical in appearance, behavior,
and abilities, but as photos from this
animal preserve show, the females are most likely to treat stuffed
animals as babies. Females
are designed to be mothers, not leaders.
carrying a "baby"
The feminists claim that the reason there are differences between
adult men and women is because parents treat their sons and daughters differently,
such as giving dolls to their daughters. However, when we provide dolls
to animals, the females are the most
likely to treat the dolls as babies. This is not because
the wolves are sexists. There are physical differences between the male
and female brain.
Male animals do not provide much,
if any, support or protection for the females.
The females have to be able to find food and to defend themselves against
predators. As a result, the female animals need virtually identical abilities
to hunt, fight, swim, fly, or whatever their particular species does.
The difference between the
sexes is greater in humans
If the monkeys that evolved into humans had merely increased
in intelligence, then women today would be very similar to men in regards
to their mental and physical qualities. However, there is a significant
difference between the mental and physical abilities of men and women.
The evolution of human caused men and women to diverge, but why?
There is no God to guide evolution. Evolution occurs through random
changes, which is a ridiculous method of bringing improvements to something.
If we had to improve automobiles by making random changes to the blueprints,
it would take millions of years to bring about just a few minor improvements.
During the development of humans, women and men have diverged, but the
changes have been through random modifications to whatever our ancestors
originally were. Therefore, to understand women today, we have to understand
what could have possibly been altered, and why. Developing completely
new traits is extremely difficult. The easiest way to change something
is to alter existing traits. Therefore, women should be just a modification
of whatever female monkeys used to be rather than a new form of female
with new qualities. My suspicion is that the men have been inadvertently
selecting women who were more childlike in certain qualities.
Why would men be attracted
Humans have a few peculiar aspects compared to animals. For
example, as I've mentioned in another file, humans seem to be the only
creature that considers waste products to be disgusting. Animals do not
have an attraction to waste products, but they are not disgusted by them,
either. Cats have no problem eating their waste products, and some female
animals will eat the waste products of their babies. Baby koala bears will
the waste products of their mother in order to get the bacteria that
they use to digest eucalyptus leaves.
The only explanation I can come up with is that as our ancestors developed
intelligence, there must have been many times when they were so hungry
that they wondered if they could eat their waste products. Animals rarely
eat their waste products because they mindlessly follow their emotions,
and their emotions are attracted to certain types of food, not waste products.
However, when an animal develops a certain amount of intelligence, it can
If we could go back in time to the point at which the disgust for waste
products was just starting to develop, I think we would find that
our ancestors were becoming intelligent enough to think about issues and
override their emotions. When they were very hungry, they occasionally
decided to eat their waste products and feed them to their children. Through
the following centuries, the people who survived the best were those who
found the smell and taste of waste products to be unpleasant. When they
were hungry, they either suffered quietly, or put more effort into finding
As their intelligence increased, they developed an even better ability
to override their emotions, thereby requiring them to develop an increasingly
stronger distaste of waste products. This cycle continued until it developed
to what we see today in which our emotional repulsion to waste products
is so strong that it is impossible for most of us to override our feelings
and eat our waste products.
Now consider the issue of why a male human would be attracted to a childlike
female rather than a fully developed, independent female. A male wolf is
not attracted to a child-like female. If a male wolf was attracted to childlike
females, he would have less success in reproducing because those females
would be less able to properly defend themselves, hunt, and take care of
their babies. What would cause our male ancestors to switch from an attraction
to fully developed females to childlike females? Why wouldn't our ancestors
want fully developed females who were capable of contributing to the hunting
of food or the creation of tools?
I suppose there are several reasons as to why men were selecting childlike
women. One of them is that as humans developed intelligence, both males
and females began to wonder why they bother with their partner. Male
and female animals do not have much of an attraction to one another. Many
male and female animals form what we refer to as "bonds", but they are
not strong attractions. Their primarily attraction is to their children.
When a male bird brings food back to the nest, he brings it for the children,
not for the female.
Male and female animals get together for sex, but only for brief moments.
Most of the time they are independent. Our distant ancestors would have
been just like the animals. The men and women would have gotten together
occasionally for sex, but they never formed a close relationship with one
another. Their primary attraction was to their children.
As our ancestors developed intelligence, there would have been a point
at which both the men and women began to wonder why they bother remaining
with their partner. Their attraction was to children, not other adults.
When a woman gives birth to a baby, she wants to devote herself to her
baby, not the father. Furthermore, our distant ancestors didn't know where
babies came from, so each woman would have assumed that her babies were
her own creations.
The adult men had a craving to take care of children, but they didn't
know where babies were coming from, so they didn't realize that only a
few of the babies were theirs. Why would they want to stay with any particular
female or help any particular children? Why not help children at random?
Why not switch from one female to another? Why remain with one particular
female? What would cause a woman to stay with a particular man? What would
cause a man to stay with a particular woman and take care of both her and
her children? What would cause a male to form a long-term relationship
with an adult female?
Male and female animals form partnerships as they raise their children,
but animals are stupid. They never contemplate such issues as, "Why am
I wasting my time with my partner when all I really want to do is take
care of the children?" As humans became more intelligent, they would start
wondering why they waste their time with their partner. What would cause
a man and woman to want to remain together?
Before you try to answer that question, consider that another of the
peculiar aspects of humans is that our babies are helpless for a
very long period of time. Most animals can walk almost immediately after
being born. If we were to go back in time far enough, we would find that
our distant ancestors were also giving birth to babies who almost immediately
began to walk. However, as humans developed intelligence, the women became
increasingly better able to take care of the defective babies who didn't
develop properly. Slowly the human gene pool degraded, and as it did, it
put a burden on the women. Mothers had to spend more of their time taking
care of their helpless, defective babies and less time taking care of themselves.
They became increasingly dependent upon other people, but why would any
man want to take care of an adult woman? The men had a sexual attraction
to adult women, but no desire to take care of them.
However, adult men already had a craving to take care of children, so
if an adult woman behaved in a childlike manner, then she would stimulate
his emotional craving to take care of children. This type of process would
feed upon itself. In other words, as the women became increasingly childlike,
and as they became better able to take care of defective babies, they became
increasingly helpless and dependent upon adult men for support. But as
they became more childlike, they became better at stimulating a man's craving
to take care of them.
Eventually the women became so much like children that the adult men
were treating them as if they were large children who need constant support
and protection. The young girls were never actually "growing up". They
would go directly from being taken care of by their parents to being taken
care of by an adult man. Furthermore, the women became so skilled at taking
care of defective babies that human babies are now helpless for about a
We behave like children when
we want to manipulate
Earlier I pointed out that women do not attract a husband by
acting like a child, but they will
act like a child when they want to manipulate men. This is most
noticeable when teenage girls are flirting with boys and deliberately fake
stupidity or scream when they see a mouse. It is also noticeable when women
Nobody has to teach humans that childlike behavior is the best method
of manipulating adult men. We have evolved with this characteristic. During
the past few thousand generations, the badly behaved people who had a tendency
to behave like submissive children received less severe punishments. This
has inadvertently favored people with this characteristic, causing us to
become what we are today, which is people who do not want to accept responsibility
for our bad behavior but instead behave like submissive children.
From the point of view of nature, humans are well adapted to life because
they are successfully reproducing, but from our point of view, we have
some idiotic characteristics that ought to be changed. For example, women
should become more intelligent and responsible, and men should stop treating
women as "damsels in distress." Men need to regard both women and children
as "humans". Men should be able to make intelligent decisions about women
and children. We should not be manipulated by tears, displays of submission,
In this modern world, men need to regard children as "young humans",
not as helpless creatures who need constant care and pampering. We no longer
have to worry about wolves eating our children, or children dying of starvation.
We now need to regard children as the next generation of people. Our emotions
are fooling us into thinking that children are precious creatures that
need special pampering, but we have to be able to analyze children from
the point of view of which of them is worthy of being a member of the
|“We are so sorry. Please forgive us. We wuv you!”
Children are already childlike, but when they misbehave, they
become even more childlike in order
to stimulate our emotions. Men have to learn to control themselves so
that they can stop being manipulated by displays of childlike behavior.
This will be especially important when we start dealing with the criminal
Jews and all other crime networks, corrupt government officials, and abusive
businessmen. As soon as some nation starts dealing with the criminal Jews,
I'm sure a lot of those Jews will put on amazing, award-winning displays
of childlike behavior in order to manipulate us into feeling sorry for
them. How many people are going to be able to control themselves and make
intelligent decisions about these Jews?
Michelle Martin, the wife of the pedophile, Mark Dutroux, is going to
be released from jail and sent
to a convent. Men must force themselves to treat women as "humans",
but how many men can control themselves enough to do this? Our emotions
want to treat women as helpless, stupid children who need pampering. Men
have a craving to be heroes; we want to be a knight in shining armor who
saves the helpless women and children. In this modern world we have to
pass judgment on which of the women and children deserves our protection,
and which of them should be removed from society.
Why do a man and woman remain
If a god had created humans, he would have given male and female
humans the necessary emotional qualities for us to form a stable relationship,
but evolution cannot easily create new qualities. It's easier to modify
an existing quality. Male and female monkeys already had a very strong
attraction to children, and children have a strong attraction to their
parents. Modifying those emotions will create a monkey that has the odd
qualities that we find in men and women today.
The previous section pointed out that I think males inadvertently bred
the females into childlike creatures. However, this would not by itself
cause the males and females to form stable relationships. The males were
attracted to females for sex, but not to just one
female. Rather, the males wanted all
attractive females. What would cause a male to remain with one particular
Likewise, the males had an attraction to children, but they had no concept
that some children were their offspring. So what would cause a male to
remain with one particular female and with the children that he
created? This issue also applies to females. Why would any female want
to stay with just one male? Why not accept food and support from whichever
male is offering it?
From my casual observations of monkeys on television nature programs,
it seems to me that female humans are more resistant to sex than
female monkeys. This increased resistance could be one of the reasons that
men are more likely to remain with one particular woman. We can see this
situation today. Most men have to struggle for many years just to
get one woman. It's easy for us to get a woman that we don't want,
but it is extremely difficult to get a woman that we do want. Only
a few men can easily get more than one desirable woman. Therefore, when
a man finally gets a woman that he is attracted to, he is not likely to
ignore her, wander away from her, or try to find another woman.
Another reason that women may have developed a strong resistance to
sex is to reduce venereal diseases. As monkeys became more intelligent,
I would expect them to become more promiscuous, not less. If we could
increase the intelligence of an animal without altering its emotions, we
would create a horrible creature because it would be smart enough to figure
out how to do whatever it wanted. An intelligent animal would be able to
figure out how to masturbate, and they would also discover that they can
please themselves with homosexual sex, children, and animals of other species.
An intelligent animal would also "figure out" that it makes the most sense
to rape women rather than hope and wait for them to become willing participants.
No animal likes being touched, except under certain circumstances, but
it seems to me that young girls have more than a "normal" concern. They
have an intense fear of sexual contact. Baby girls do not have any
problem with nudity or sex, but when they are perhaps six years old, they
start developing a very strong fear of being touched in a sexual manner.
The only way that young girls would evolve such a resistance to sexual
contact is if men had been trying to use them for sex for a very long time,
and the girls who were best adapted to this miserable situation were those
who were most likely to scream, cry, and fight.
I can give you a personal example. Many years ago I had put a bunch
of leaves and twigs in a pile, and a young girl in the neighborhood saw
the pile and decided to jump into it. She then stood motionless, with a
look of worry on her face, apparently because the twigs were rubbing against
her legs and she was frightened to move. She just stood still in the pile,
not saying anything and not even moving her arms. She was about six years
old. I walked over to her, and picked her up under her arms, as you normally
pick up a child, and put her to the side of the pile. She continued to
stand motionless for a few moments, but as I walked away, she relaxed and
reprimanded me with something like, "Don't you ever touch me!" She didn't
reprimand me just once, either. I was worried the neighbors would hear
her and call the police.
You might respond that she was afraid of me because I was an adult,
but that is not true. For another personal example, when I was perhaps
11 years old, I and other children about the same age were swimming in
a small creek. One of the boys put one of the other boys or girls on his
shoulder while he was out in the water. We were not strong enough to do
that on land, but we could do it in the water. One of the girls thought
it looked like fun, and so she asked me if she could get on my shoulders.
Both of us were in the water, standing perhaps up to our chest, and so
I got behind her, held my breath, bent down under water, and tried to put
my head between her legs so that when I stood up, she would be sitting
on my shoulders. That is how I put my brother and sister on my shoulders.
However, as soon as my head touched her legs, she panicked and closed
her legs tightly on my neck. Since she was about the same size as me, I
had to struggle to get my head from between her legs and out of the water
so that I could breathe. I told her to stop that, and I tried a second
time, but she did the same thing. The sensation of something moving between
her legs caused her to panic. Perhaps she would have been able to let her
father or brother do it. I think it is more evidence that women evolved
an intense fear of a man touching them between their legs, and the only
way they would develop such a fear is if men have been trying to have sex
with young girls for thousands of years.
Giving intelligence to a monkey will allow it to figure out how to satisfy
itself sexually in manners that nature never intended, such as using children,
and this could explain one of the reasons that girls today have such an
intense resistance to sex. However, the increased resistance to sex would
have other advantages, such as causing sex to become an even stronger reward
for a man, thereby helping to keep him together with one woman.
Now consider another peculiar aspect of humans; namely, humans seem
to be the only animal that kisses with its tongue. I haven't watched enough
television nature shows to be sure, but I am not aware of any other animals
that kiss like this, especially not on a routine basis. Our mouth is rather
filthy, especially in prehistoric times when there was no dental hygiene,
so why would we be interested in such an activity? Animals lick, but that
is not the same as kissing with a tongue.
I suspect that kissing is a modification of the craving that babies
have to suckle on their mother. Babies
have a strong craving to suck and swallow, and they become emotionally
attached to whoever it is that they are nursing on. The craving to suckle
seems to vanish in animals as they grow older, but this craving seems to
persist in humans throughout adulthood, although in a subdued form.
By selecting the more childlike women, the men were inadvertently picking
women who hadn't fully developed, and that can cause a lot of childhood
behavior to persist in adults. The women who had this craving to suckle
would have an advantage over the other women because it would cause them
to become even more emotionally attached to a man. It would be another
emotional craving that would help to keep men and women together in a relationship.
If kissing is a modified craving to suckle, then why not suck on a finger,
a nipple, or an ear lobe? The reason is because nursing is not simply the
act of sucking. It is also the act of swallowing.
Therefore, in order to satisfy this emotion, we need to suck on something
that is wet.
I think people are having
sex too often
Judging by myself, a man's sexual cravings increase to a maximum
after about three to four weeks, at which time our penis becomes extremely
sensitive, and we start thinking about sex. If we don't masturbate or have
sex, it will happen while we are sleeping. Although it's not a precise
cycle as it is with women, why would a man's sexual craving occur on a
3 to 4 week cycle? I suspect it is intended to match the monthly cycle
Consider what life would have been like thousands of years ago. The
prehistoric women did not have beautiful clothing, and they did not have
access to showers or bathrooms. They would have been less sexually attractive.
The females would be most sexually aroused during the time of the month
that they are most fertile, and then they would be likely to have sex one
or more times that week. That would satisfy the man for the next three
I don't think male and female humans were designed for daily or weekly
sex. I think we were intended for sex about one week each month. I think
people today are having sex much too often. One reason seems to be that
we are being titillated to extremes because of all the sexual material
on television and advertisements, and because so many women are dressing
and behaving like sex toys. Contrary to popular belief, women are more
sexually attractive in clothing than when naked, especially in prehistoric
times, when their crotch was filthy.
Another reason some people are having too much sex is because they are
This same situation occurs with food. People are eating excessively, partly
because they cannot control themselves around enormous amounts of delicious
food, but partly because so many people are lonely and bored. If we lived
in a more pleasant society in which we enjoyed the other people and had
lots of activities, I think people would spend less time sitting at home
and getting bored, and that in turn would reduce some of the excessive
eating and sex.
Another reason that I think some people are having too much sex is because
the men who have a lot of sex are boasting about it, thereby creating the
impression that they are having a better life than the men who have less
sex. Those men are similar to the wealthy people who boast about their
money, thereby creating the impression that wealthy people are happier
than the rest of us.
If we could measure sexual satisfaction, I wouldn't be surprised to
discover that nobody is totally satisfied for the simple reason
that our sexual desires were never intended for our pleasure. They developed
only to "trick" us into reproducing. However, we might find that some of
the people who are the most satisfied are those who are masturbating,
and possibly those who use inanimate objects! The reason I say this is
because when you have sex with another person, you can't truly do what
you want to do. When you do it yourself, you can't totally be satisfied
either, but at least you can do whatever you want. We might also find that
certain interracial couples are the most sexually unhappy because their
particular races have some incompatible sexual cravings.
This issue also applies to sleeping in the same bed. Are couples who
sleep together in the same bed happier than couples who have separate beds
or separate bedrooms? Not necessarily. Some people may sleep so well together
that they are happier in the same bed, but other couples might have more
stable relationships if they have separate beds or separate bedrooms.
Nature never intended us
to enjoy sex
Our sexual cravings are intended to serve a purpose; namely,
to cause men and women to get together and reproduce. For example,
why do women want men to thrust their penis deeply into them? It is because
if the sperm are released in the vagina, most of them will be lost. In
order to get through the cervix, the man needs to press his penis tightly
up to it as he is ejaculating. The men and women who were most successful
in reproducing were the women who evolved a craving for the men to push
deep, and the men who evolved craving to do exactly that.
A lot of people consider their sexual desires to be personal or embarrassing,
but all of them developed for a purpose. Our desires are functional,
not embarrassing or personal. We evolved these particular cravings in order
to make us reproduce. Even the reason
women make noises during sex and the reason why men are titillated by those
noises is to facilitate reproduction. If men preferred to rape women,
then they would be attracted to screaming and crying, and if men had no
concern for whether women were enjoying sex, then they wouldn't care
if the women were silent. However, natural selection favors the males who
the females, not rape them. Also, the most stable relationships between
a man and woman will occur when both of them are satisfied to some extent.
Men evolved a desire to please the women, not rape them, but how would
a man know if a woman is pleased? The woman has to give the man some type
of signal, and in the case of primitive humans, the signal was certain
noises. The men who did not care for those noises, or who preferred listening
to women screaming or crying, were not as successful in forming stable
relationships as the men who were titillated by those noises.
The only way we are going to truly enjoy life is to understand
our emotions so that we can design our society to deal with them, and so
that we can make plans for what we want the human race to evolve into.
Ideally, we would restrict reproduction to the people who have the qualities
that we want the human race to have, and that would cause the human race
to slowly evolve into people who are truly well suited to their environment.
Why are we hiding childbirth?
There is a widespread fear that childbirth is dangerous, especially
to children. As I have mentioned in other files, if it were legal to observe
childbirth, and if there were videos of it on the Internet, most of us
would watch them only a few times, and then our curiosity would
be satisfied. Nobody would be harmed.
Why would our ancestors develop a paranoia of those activities? I suppose
that the paranoia of childbirth came about as a result of people developing
"manners". If we could travel back in time far enough, we would find women
giving birth with no concern that other people were in the area. Animals
don't care what other animals are doing. Animals are too busy following
their emotions to find food and watch out for predators. As humans became
more intelligent, they began noticing what other people are doing, and
they began to develop what we call "manners".
We enjoy watching animals and humans give birth, but only to satisfy
our curiosity. We don't want to watch it over and over. As women began
to realize that nobody wants to watch them give birth, they began doing
it in isolated areas. However, as soon as the women began giving birth
in private, the children grew up in an environment in which they never
saw childbirth, and since they were ignorant and less intelligent than
us, they made the false assumption that childbirth is hidden because it
is terrible or dangerous.
In reality, we hide childbirth for the same reason we hide surgery.
Specifically, we are emotionally upset by blood, the smell of our liquids
and organs, and by crying and screaming. Children need to be taught that
we hide childbirth and other activities to be well mannered, not because
it is evil or dangerous.
Why are we so afraid of nudity
and nursing babies?
I suppose the paranoia of nudity and of nursing babies is mainly
due to the men who could not control their sexual cravings. Some men may
have made lewd remarks, and some may have touched or grabbed the women,
and some may have masturbated in front of them. The women would have reacted
by avoiding men when they were naked or nursing babies, and this would
create the impression that those activities are dangerous to men.
Our ancestors have been reacting to badly behaved people by
altering society to deal with the worst behaved members. In the Muslim
nations the people reacted to badly behaved men by telling the women to
keep themselves covered when they were in public. Rather than improve the
situation, this philosophy allows the human race to degrade.
The proper reaction to men and women who cannot fit into society is
to remove them, or at least prohibit them from reproducing. This
will eventually create a society in which women can breast-feed their babies
without fear, and in which people who are riding bicycles can stop along
a river, take off their clothes, and jump in the water without worrying
about being arrested for nudity.