Biology is my Religion: The Bible was wrong, the meek do not inherit the earth!

There is a cycle between two types of societies, between two things. A self-centered society and a society-centered society. The meek are the society centered and during hard times yes they do inherit the earth but during good times they do not, during good times nature does not want us to just survive, during good times nature wants us to compete and have only the very best survive. So both the meek and the self-centered inherit the earth and if I am to judge things by my internal selfishness vs. my internal socialness it would seem that more often than not the self-centered inherit the earth!

Also to note, there is not one patriarchy or one matriarchy or one socialism or one capitalism, over time it is a cycle that has happened an uncountable number of time in every layer of society and even within our minds. We settle with the parts that favor society that we need while taking the parts that favor self that we can. We settle with governments and laws and schools (all on the social sides), while taking the parts of the self side that we can.

Early societies. How I imagine the social structure of at least one early society was.

Picture this: Women give birth and live together with other women and all of the children who have been born. The women go out and search for food and water and other resources which exist in safe spaces near enough to their community.

Men lived separately; boys joined the males when they were old enough to no longer need their mothers (maybe around 10-12 years old). Males hunted and gathered; generally not in the same places as women. They hunted in places further away and gathered in more dangerous territory. They did this because it often meant less work for the same quantity/quality of food and it meant they could access resources which they could use to trade with women.

Women and men were generally uncommitted to each other and most were bisexual. The women mostly slept with each other however from time to time they would trade sex for something of value that one of the males had to offer.  Homosexuality was human’s first all-natural birth control.

Males competed among each other and that drove the ‘’economy”. It was a capitalist economy and it was a capitalist mating system. Something along the way changed though and we switched to a socialist mating system. To monogamy, to traditionalism and it worked. I think for the betas in society (like me!!!) it would be good to hold on to this system; but for the alphas the old system is better. Who will win and what are your thoughts?

Biology is my Religion. Why sex is more than just SEX!

Despite the many things that I do not agree with the church on, in my opinion the church(and not biology) has it right on sex! Sex is not just sex for two major reasons:

1) Sex is the most intimate thing you can do with another human being.

2) Sex results in new human beings, whose lives should be considered before the act of sex takes place.

What are my values with respect to sex? Well I think virginity is a good thing. I respect people who keep their virginity until they meet someone who they want to build a life and have children with, however I think it is unhealthy to focus on your virginity or to think of yourself as having lost a part of yourself when your virginity is lost. Non virgins should be valued pretty much as equally as virgins in the world of sex and relationships. Ideally I think that people should discuss how committed they are before having sex and they should be committed so that if a child was to be the result of sex, that child would have the highest possible chance of having his or her needs met. That child would have the benefit of two committed parents.

I know that the reality is very different from the ideal and that is okay, but we should not change the ideal just because most people are unable to achieve it though. It is an ideal; we can explain to people that being able to achieve this ideal is unlikely and that there is no reason to beat yourself up over it; yet still this is the ideal because it is what is most likely to give the best results. I think that we should look at sex as intimate and something that should ideally only be done within the context of stable relationships, however if we do have sex with the wrong person that should be shame-free. We should not be encouraged to stay in sexual relationships with people who we would not have kids with, but we should also not feel guilty about having sex with the wrong person or about giving in to our very natural desires to have sex simply for pleasure.

I am weird like this but personally speaking if my husband was to cheat on me as hurt as I would be I would not leave him (unless it was with a close friend or relative). As long as he can explain it to me I would be okay with and move on, we all make mistakes and we all give into our desires even though we intend not to. I can also see myself potentially being okay with an open relationship if there was a way for me to be 999% sure that my husband would not be getting other women pregnant and that I would not get any STDs; this is not reality though. In reality (no matter WHAT, ie even with condoms/a vasectomy)  I would fear him either giving me an STD or getting someone else pregnant. Plus I used to be an easily jealous person.

So giving into sexual desires, if you genuinely have those desires, is not bad; but it is also not the ideal! According to biology it is the ideal because biology just wants as many fit children as it can get and fit to biology is unfortunately still physical might and having a skill set more needed in the hunter-gatherer days than what is needed today. So on this one point Religion rather than biology is my religion because mankind has already created an unnaturally large society that biology did not get time to cater for and so we cannot just depend on our biological instincts when it comes to sex. Depending on biology here would mean promoting a structure for society that no longer works. Yes there are health benefits that come from giving into sexual desires, but at the same time I feel it is important for society to understand that sex is not just sex and that it is not really in the best interest of society as a whole to encourage people to give into to their desires without preparing for the children that may result.

It is also not in the best interest of society to demonize causal sex, but we as a society need to keep in mind that since sex results in babies, and babies/children do better within family settings. Who we are having sex with and the type of relationship we have when engaging in sex therefore DOES matter. Of course birth control has changed a lot with respect to this argument and with birth control sex can potentially be just sex, but birth control is not 100% effective, and in my opinion being really safe means preparing for all possible outcomes no matter how unlikely.

More on the benefits of monogamy. And what I think about polyamory (open relationships).

Okay so like I said in this post monogamy is not natural. Or maybe it is but not in a completely sense since it is also natural for us to want to sleep with other people. It seems to be the best trick that mankind has played on nature though because it enabled the formation of family units which benefited children (especially boys).

If I think about the alternatives to monogamy, like open relationships or polygamous relationships they can also provide a great environment for children (in some ways an even better environment than monogamous relationships because they give children access to more than 2 parents), but it seems to me that they are still slightly unnatural. Neither monogamous nor polygamous relationships are entirely natural because the truth is that the concept of male-fame relationships probably came a bit late in our evolution. Not so late that they are entirely unnatural, but so late that fulfilling our natural desires alone would probably still leave us completely uncommitted.

Open relationships solve the biological inconsistency of denying yourself sexual pleasure when it is available but they create a playground for jealousy. Yesterday I went to a baby play group with my toddler. She almost fell and the mother of a 10 month old helped her not to fall. The 10 month old saw that and started screaming and crawled over to his mother to stop the physical contact that was taking place. This type of behavior is common and observable in all babies and even toddler where I live. ALL. They say (and I believe this) that it is a result of insecure attachment or the babies needs not being fully met.

So in countries where mothers typically meet all of the babies needs by co-sleeping and breastfeeding etc. and where there is a larger community of adults available to the child this type of jealously is rarely seen. I use this example of jealously because it came from a 10 month old baby who has had very little socialization. Jealousy as a result of not having all or basic needs met therefore seems to be a natural thing. Open relationships set up a situation where jealousy has to be dealt with at the source (ie our insecurities) rather than at the trigger (ie how monogamy deals with jealousy). Human insecurities are very hard to address in a world as superficial as ours is so until people (mainly women) stop sexually discriminating based on things like money or how much of a jerk a guy is we will always have human insecurities within male female relationships.

If the majority of people were to have open relationships society on a whole would do fine in terms of meeting children’s needs but we would end up with a huge group of people (mostly men I think) who do not get very much sex at all and who would be very unhappily wondering whose children they were taking care of or if they would ever be able to pass on their genes. Unless it was done in such a way in which a husband and wife must prioritize each other’s needs before going outside and then I think we would quickly end up with monogamy.

So relationships being separate from sex can work fine until we encounter jealously. To address this type of jealousy we have to make each member of the relationship secure. Monogamy is the end result of an attempt to do that, the alternative attempt would be to meet each person’s needs and create sexually secure partners. This would mean asking people not to sexually discriminate as opposed to asking people not to sleep around.  Maybe people throughout history just found it easier not to sleep with everyone they felt to sleep with than to sleep with people who they did not feel to sleep with. I am not sure though, what are your thoughts?

The beauty of internet relationships. Why dating online is a good idea.

I met my husband over the internet and I would not have it any other way. Isn’t it strange that whenever we are asked where we met it feels wrong or lame or somehow more shameful that we met online when in reality I cannot think of a better place to meet your spouse.  In a world where we are all seeking to be known, to be explored and to feel less alone and more like someone can see our mind (our depth, our soul) where better can we meet potential mates than online?

Yes it is true that the internet opens us yup to liars, scam artist and worse but these people can also be met in everyday life. To compensate for the greater concentration of ‘’weridos’’ that we are exposed to online the internet also forces us to make mental connections before physical ones. It allows us to really get to know the heart of the other person; the truth behind them. The internet gives us confidence to be who really are, to fuck political correctness to admit all the nasty things we have done, to let down the strong mask we wear in real life. Because the internet is a mask in itself. The screens and the distance and the anonamousity can be such a thick mask that for the first time we can be ourselves through the internet.

And it is only by being yourself that you can find someone that matches you. Some people have the confidence and security and opportunity to be themselves without the internet but I did not. I was so depressed and frustrated with my lack of connections that I invented a name for myself and went about connecting with strangers until I met the one who understood. The guy who understood what it felt like to be mentally alone. What it felt like to have so many thoughts and not know if anyone else had them as well, what it felt like to long for that type of connection where someone knows you so well that they know all of your nasty parts and still accept you. He was the one.

We spoke online for 6 months before ever exchanging pictures. We fell in love without ever knowing what we looked like, or smelt like, or felt like. All we knew was what we thought like, and now 9 years later we are still happy, still in love, have two beautiful and amazing children and still very much connected.

So internet relationships are beautiful and can be real and offer a type of connection that I think many of us crave!

Society’s obsession with –isms

Photo: Defining women relationally has only led to the violation of our rights. We are people in our own right and as such entitled to our bodily autonomy

I just had to share this picture and say that society does try to classify everyone as belonging to a group or sect and that in some ways it is unhealthy. It is useful I agree, and I do it all the time. We do this for a reason and it has many benefits, but it may also be worthwhile to remember that people are also individuals who deserve to be explored not as men, or women, or mothers, or Jews, or Americans, or doctors, or housewives but just as beings.

We are so dynamic and ever changing. Our opinions are constantly evolving and what we think or use to define us today may be completely different tomorrow. Generalities do have their place within society, philosophy and the human mind though so I cannot 100% support this photo, but there is some truth to it. Often I resent the preconceived opinions that people have about me and I wish that we would enter conversations and interactions with each other with an open mind and a clean slate.

For me my family is most guilty of seeing me with preconceived notions, of thinking that they know who I am and that they understand me. When how can anyone truly be understood or classified? We are dynamic beings and every new thought that I have in some way defines me. So to call myself an atheist or conservative can never really define me because I could not possibly have the same thoughts as all other atheists or conservatives and to assume that you know more about me based on my classification is damaging.

It is true that in most cases you can know more about a person based on their classification but it is also damaging to not keep in mind that they may surprise you and that they may not be exactly who you think they are.

What Atheists can learn from Religion and what Liberals should learn from Conservatives.

Okay so I am not religious or American but in theory how I think is closer to the atheist worldview and in theory I would vote liberally but there are one or two idea that I think the atheist and liberals should take from their opponents.

The number one thing is monogamy. I think that historically monogamous societies have always been more successful than liberal societies where people simply sleep around. My theory is that this was the case because monogamous societies allowed fathers to be present in their children’s life. Historically men have been the stronger sex because women were busy getting pregnant and trying to nurse babies and insure that they made it through the fragile years. So men always had the capacity to accomplish more than women. By giving boys access to male role models I think past societies allowed boys to structure their lives in a more productive way.

I think that monogamy promotes productive boys because as they are developing they have access to male role models who they can emulate. It gives them stability, direction and makes them less marginalized than they otherwise would be. I think that monogamy is unnatural and that nature actually intended for us to be liberal but that monogamy is one of man’s best tricks on nature. You see our bodies are created for a time that no longer exists. We are created for the past; a time where resources were more abundant but may have required us to sometimes risk our lives to get access to these resources.

In a liberal society where men lack role models, men become more marginalized and less secure in their roles. This would mean that men were more likely to risk their lives to attack other tribes and would compete more aggressively among each other. Nature favored this model because it worked in a time where resources were that was our reality, where danger was more common and where it was sometimes necessary for men to risk their lives. But that time no longer exist and men have been using monogamy to trick nature and to increase the productivity of males for a long time. I think this is one of the major reasons that religions like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and every other monogamy based religion have made it so far. Because they supported monogamy their societies became more productive and that is why they survived.

So I think it is something that we need to keep in mind as we create new models for our societies. Monogamy favors productivity and could favor our survival.

There are more things that we can learn and adopt from religion and conservatism but I will make other post on them and add the links to this post.