Tuesday, August 4, 2015

The Predetermined Mating Habits of Human Egocentrica Mammalia



After a very long hiatus in the field, studying the behaviors of human egocentrica mammalia, I have returned from their petroleum based habitats to provide a field report.

This report focuses on the genetically predetermined mating habits of human egocentrica mammalia.

However, the important point emphasized throughout this report (a point this blog has relentlessly proclaimed) is that the chief factor differentiating the human egocentrica mammalian species from all other species in the natural world is that egocentrica mammalians believe they have a "self" that makes choices free of external and internal influences, free of biological imperatives, neuro-circuited hard-wiring and other, sundry, instinctual drives.

Such belief is patently absurd when considered in depth, but the human egocentric mammalian, though constantly engaged in thought processes to the point of utter madness, is not very adept at plumbing any real depth attributable to his/her ability to process "thought."

Nature has allowed human egocentrica the gift/curse of 'selfhood' and through it human egocentrica constructs monstrous civilizations to try and further remove himself (albeit, fruitlessly, as will be demonstrated) from the natural predetermined causal order that allowed him existence in the first place, but that will inevitably end up allowing him to entirely destroy himself (those signs can be seen all around him, yet he continues to "deny," which, of course, is the first stage in the "Stages of Grief" process).

The mating habits of human egocentrica mammalia is one of the many aspects of his life that he believes he has complete conscious cognitive/behavioral control (pertaining to both sexes of the egocentric tribe). Similar to 99% of the behaviors he engages in, his mating habits are entirely under subconscious direction, leaving him no conscious idea why he actually does what he does, but nevertheless shaping and molding the behaviors needed to have his instinctual drives satisfied. Human egocentrica remains deeply incarcerated in his sub-neural, subconscious 'hard wiring,' that was originally initiated in the womb, only to become concretely reinforced in his grey matter as he developed in physical maturity, insuring the instinctual directive of the predetermined, and continually unfolding, causal order, would be followed even through the complicated moral conventions of the post-modern world branded into the frontal cortex..

Hence, all his/her mating habits, that he/she believes are consciously and volitionally chosen, are completely and inextricably predetermined and genetically hard wired between his ears and outside the purview of a 'self' engaging the delusion of free-will. The mating habits of egocentrica are no different than the primordial directives to eat, sleep, shit, seek safety and survive and, regardless of all his rampant intellectualizing, he is bound to these natural directives unless he cognitively seeks to ignore them at his peril (suicide).

As evolutionary psychology demonstrates, sexual habits of egocentrica mammalians are entirely based in genetically programmed imperatives that are not that difficult to observe in egocentrica's fabricated world, and have nothing to do with any conscious decision-making the egocentric species prides themselves on. 

The male of the species has a prime directive to engage sexually with all the females because it is biologically imperative that he spread his DNA far and wide. The biological imperative of the female is just the opposite, but just as basic, and requires her choosing the best DNA to insure survival of her offspring (hypergamy). These two genetically programmed imperatives are hard-wired into his/her brain and are just as manifest in modern times as they were when we were tribal hunter-gatherers.

Translate this into our post-modern era and we can understand the need to invent the social convention of pair-bonding/marriage in support of a monogamous lifestyle, since allowing only Alpha males to procreate would serve as a weak foundation for a social order/state that requires a population of obedient workers/soldiers.

Unfortunately, this confinement of mating within strict socially prescribed boundaries failed to consider the opposing subconscious biological imperatives of the sexes and it is becoming ever more clear that monogamy is no longer a tenable strategy resulting in the complete unfolding and disruption of the social fabric, since the female hypergamous nature demands she engage sexually with the Alpha and seek only provisioning from the Beta.

The female egocentrica has complete control of procreation and the sexual act (baring rape), while the male controls his choice of commitment/relationship, simply because the male is hard-wired to want sex often, while the female is wired to engage commitment as a prerequisite of frequent sex and this harks back to hunter-gatherer times and the requiring the protection of the Alpha male. Hence, in the modern world the male egocentrica wants sex often and based on the prevailing social convention has socially contracted (marriage) to have sex often, but with only one female. However, he does not get to choose that female, since his job is to strut around like a peacock in the hopes she will choose him and, if he possesses the genetically valuable Alpha traits that insures the survival of her offspring, she will receive his DNA and his protection/provisioning.

Yet, the problem of marriage is twofold. The female's hypergamy demands dissociation from the betasized male, resulting in reduction or discontinuance of sex, demanding the Beta do more to acquire it, resulting in loss of attraction by the female, since Alphas need do nothing to acquire sex due to their Alpha status. Quite simply, the male seeks extramarital sex due to his imperative to spread his genetics to other females, while the female seeks extramarital sex to entertain her desire to acquire the genetics of the Alpha.

"All men want is sex" and "why do women like jerks" are common refrains of post-modern male/female egocentrica mammalians, in an attempt to deny genetic imperatives, as if they had a choice in the matter. Yet, mother's of male child egocentrics are the chief protagonists in maintaining the social fabric by engineering the neuro-circuitry of the male egocentric offspring to believe that his chief preoccupation should be the adoration and worship of the egocentric female, which is completely counter the actual inclination of the Alpha, adhering to the "fuck 'em and forget 'em" modus operandi. Alpha males do NOT commit to any one female egocentric in their desire to impregnate ALL female egocentrics, yet the Beta male is thus socially programmed to seek out and commit to one female, who will eventually tire and become bored with the Beta, since she is genetically programmed for Alpha attraction, and will thus one day encounter an Alpha for whom she will sacrifice everything to receive his genetic material on a regular basis (resulting in the hugely lucrative "divorce" industry which generates billions annually, of which over 50% of marriages end in divorce and of that 50% over 70-75% are initiated by the female egocentrica mammalian).

Nevertheless, even with the lunacy of this mating strategy, the Beta male is so deeply indoctrinated to follow socially programmed scripting(prefrontal cortex), the genetically predetermined nature of his initial idealistic, Disneyesque, matrimonial bliss will only turn to abject melancholy (Major Depression is rampant for males in the U.S.) when everything he does for the female, to insure her receptiveness to his genetic material, only results in rejection, since Alphas need do nothing based on their status in the social hierarchy, and the more he does to engage it the greater her disrespect and contempt and the farther she moves away (Briffaults law: "The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place") until one day the Alpha finds his way to her lusting heart and the marital fantasy of the Beta is crushed like a grape and he must part with half of all his shit, rarely see his offspring (if at all) and reward her a monthly salary (alimony) for her choice to engage the Alpha who will use her, until the next willing female egocentrica mammalian engages his fancy, at which point he tosses her aside.

But note that all of this is occurring based on genetically hard-wired directives and no conscious intention is engaged. Egocentrica makes his/her best attempt to conform to the social conventions but, alas, his/her deeper instincts will always run the show. The masculine/feminine sexual instinct of human egocentric mammalia is the absolute driving force of post-modern society and can be identified in every engagement he encounters.

This is obviously why your "enlightened master teacher" fell from grace. His "enlightenment" was a product of a programmed post-modern prefrontal-cortex, while his copulating with the 22 yr old student was motivated by neuro-circuitry deep within his reptilian brain stem, that even his prefrontal cortex could not impede or obstruct.

Your "enlightenment" is entirely based on your recognition that "you" are in charge of nothing at all, whatsoever, and it couldn't be any simpler to finally be..."done," in the illuminating recognition that a "self" in charge of nothing at all, is a self that cannot possibly exist.


Artwork by Enthyros Van Akel

18 comments:

  1. This story gets told a lot, but what really makes it true? It seems no more true than saying "there's someone out there for everyone" and "monogamy is something that healthy, moral people choose". If we can acknowledge cracks in the latter, "happy" story, then it's only fair to take note of the cracks in the "dark" story too.

    Taking it as a given that we have no free will, that we're barely different from animals, keep in mind that animals do all kinds of shit, arrange themselves in all sorts of ways, and are not particularly driven by the "story" you tell here. Homosexuality, for example, extends even to INSECTS. How can that be explained?

    Maybe your story is close, but not quite. Over her lifetime, a female may want to be with a few different mates, as high-quality as possible, to increase the diversity of her offspring. But social strictures will keep her monogamous. That is, unless there's a compounding influence of a lover who's higher social status, at which point the situation becomes much more tempting. So maybe she'd be perfectly happy having a kid or two with one (so-called) "beta" guy, and then another kid or two with another "beta", but our "civilization" simply doesn't allow for that possibility. It conditions us to feel like we're "lesser" if we don't have a lifetime committed relationship, so it had better be "worth it" to break it off. Two people who might otherwise separate do whatever they can to avoid social punishment.

    Or, you know, maybe the story I just told is also complete bullshit. The point is, there's no very clear way to tell what's "really" happening when there are all the societal restrictions that distort our natural impulses tremendously. Arguably, there are societal influences that shape animal behavior too: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/what-females-want-to-have-to-hold-and-to-cheat/829/

    If there's no clear way to tell what's "natural" for humans, why invest so strongly in ANY story? Why do we care whether anyone should allow themselves to "love", or keep themselves from getting fooled by "love"?

    There IS something we can call "love" out there... there's love of a mother for her children (usually), there's love between friends and couples. There's even inter-species "love" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_and_Mzee). What upsets people is when this "love" doesn't fit a certain definition they have for it. It doesn't conform to their expectations, doesn't protect them from death, doesn't really have much more long-term meaning than the enjoyment of a delicious ice cream cone on a hot summer evening. And so what? Why does anyone care? Can't we just enjoy our fucking ice cream, and not worry so much that there might not be ice cream tomorrow?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "If there's no clear way to tell what's "natural" for humans, why invest so strongly in ANY story?"

    Biology is quite factual and entirely grounded in nature. The conceptualizing of mating strategies with "love" is the "story," that seeks to negate or minimize what is actually occurring in real world intergender interactions as a means of narcissistically aggrandizing egocentricity as separate from nature and not in anyway victim to biology.

    But let me make this easier for you. Get a big mixing bowl. Dump in respective parts testosterone/estrogen, add some progestin and a dash of cortisol, sprinkle in some oxytocin, whisk in some serotonin and add a heaping helping of dopamine and viola...we have "love."

    My friend, there is no such thing as "love." It's a concept that we made up, just like "happiness." It's a concept that gets us all jiggy with denying biological facts.

    But human egocentrica mammalia loves the mythological, the mystical, the fabricated and the fictional. We love the lie that defines life more than we love life itself.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree love is all chemical, and all meaningless, like every other emotion. The point is, enjoy the "love cocktail" while it's there, the same way you might enjoy a nice sunset. What's the point of imposing a story on it? It's probably wrong, because animal behavior is complex and chaotic. It neither confirms to our happy nor our unhappy visions.

      Delete
    2. Make no mistake, your enjoyment of "a nice sunset" is inextricably due to the "story" you have imposed upon it. The senses merely collect data, while the prefrontal cortex processes that data based on programmed neuro-circuits and you had no choice in that programming, since it occurred in your formative years. Hence, your "story," that which stimulates serotinin/dopamine increases is not even yours, but given to you. The bear, deer and squirrels that inhabit my woods don't give a good godamn fook about the sunset.

      Actually, "animal behavior" is not really that complex, since nature requires only the basic instincts be met, with a few anomalies scattered here and there. However, human ego-centered behavior is inordinately complex because it seeks to extract itself from nature (Maslow's self actualization) through the use of psychological conceptualizations that have no comparison in nature and are merely inventions of an egocentric mind (we just make sheit up that suits our fictional purposes)

      The natural world does NOT rely on story telling. Only human egocentrica mammalia has a "story" to tell that he actually believes is superior to nature, till the hurricane takes out his house and kills his family (but he conjures up a "story" for that too)

      Mike

      Delete
    3. It's hard to disagree with any of that. Our sex lives are only about passing our genes to the next generation and ensuring their survival.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Replies
    1. Yep and "The Red Pill."
      In my business I have to understand subconscious intergender dynamics.

      Delete
  5. Hiatus studying the mating habits of human egocentrica mammalia?

    And how did you enjoy Vegas?

    Glad to have ya back.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Chris,

    Unfortunately, I'm taking some flack for violating the "what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas" rule (especially from the female egocentrics).

    Thanks,
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  7. My partner has had a vasectomy! Does that mean he will still cheat?

    ReplyDelete
  8. What you call "pre-determinated mating-habits", can also be called karmic-bondange is playing out. All relationships are karmic-bonds. Without karmic-bonds, nobody can incarnate here on planet earth. Karmic-bonds are depts and dutys, one ows to other human being. The kind of relationships one has here, are all karmic by nature. They are relationships that pre-date this currant existence. They have been created in former live-times. They are un-resolved bonds, that are repeated again, in different roles and role-concepts, than before. And IF one understands that, both partners in a relationship are free from that kind of bondage. By understanding: What ever happens in a relationship of two adults, is what was exactely that: A means to understand what relationships are all about, here on planet earth.

    Therefore, who ever is holding on to some idea, when two adults are mating, that one can be an utter asshole but the other one is an innocent angel, is deluded. There is no such thing like that. Both partners fullfill a role. And it is either understood what it was (or still is) or not. The victim-offender circle does not apply to adult human relationships. It only applies to some historical facts like being the victim of living in a war-zone. That is beyond personal responsibility. But personal, adult relationship are not beyond personal responsibility. They are karmic. And therefore there are no victims in such relationships. Although some may claim to be a victim.

    There are only victims of war and other violent circumstances, who are not under the control of the individual. But if you have dinner with some dude you date, or not, you are responsible for...to be able to determine if that dude seem to be a nice and honest guy or not. And if one "overlooks" certain signals, that are always there in the beginning of every so called abusive relationship, then that's because you don't want to see it. And exactely that is because of your karmic-bond.

    I hope that makes sense and adds to the topic on another level than mere biological and chemical explainations for being attracted to one another..

    Thanks for having me.

    A.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I just started reading your blogs, and I think I'm in love....:-)

    I found you through Nothing Exists Despite Appearances, and you've provided me with a whole bunch of chuckles tonight. Thanks so much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Laurie,

      As long as we're okay with "love" being nothing more than an amalgamation of neurochemicals, i.e, serotonin, dopamine, oxytocin, nurepinephrine, endorphins, et al, then...

      ...I love you too.

      Glad you enjoyed the blog,
      Mike

      Delete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete