- Assisted Suicide & Right to die
- Child Porn Witch Hunt
- Faulty Science
- Human Rights
- Inspiring Intelligent Solutions
- Intelligent Design (Creationism)
- Irrational Drug Policy
- Men's Rights & Feminism
- Political correctness
- Race & Intelligence
- Religion & Atheism
- Social Rules & Habits
- Teenage Sexuality
- Unhealty Lifestyle
- Victimless Crime
Posts Tagged Hypocrisy
- Transcript: Hummer Mom’ Christine Hubbs Convicted of Underage Sex, Says She’s Not a ‘Predator’
- ABC’s readers comments
- Sex Is Evil: Film at 11 | Sexual Intelligence
- See improper relationships and crimes against nature committed by other women
Double standard: men punished more harshly then women
- If a man did the same, would it be called "underage sex"? No, it would be called rape. So there certainly is a double standard.
- Would a man get away with 5 years? A man probably would get 15 to 25 years in jail.
- In a TV interview, would a man not be treated much worse?
Sex has more serious consequences for boys then for girls: The double standard should be inverted!
In this modern age boys need more protection then girls (due to slower maturation, existing laws and scientific progress)
- adolescent girls mature faster then boys, physically, intellectually and psychologically. Legal age for marriage was, and still is much lower for girls then for boys in most countries in the world (Marriagable Age | Wikipedia, Elisabethan marriage customs, Historical Age of Marriage). This has also to do with gender roles with the more mature man the provider and protector.
- pregnancy, the real sex-induced "damage" to girls can be avoided by birth control. Girls have total freedom to decide if they carry a pregnancy to term or use their reproductive freedom for an early term abortion.
- Things have changed since the EEA, where evolution has shaped our inborn moral feelings, and since biblical times, when our religious code was written down. Fairly recently, we devised birth control, abortion, DNA tests, government welfare and legal child support obligation for men.
- In biblical times and the EEA, a girl had no option to avoid pregnancy through birth control, no option to terminate pregnancy through (early term) abortion, no courts nor police state pursuing the father for support (except shotgun weddings due to pressure by the girl’s kin), no government welfare, no child care and job opportunities for single mothers. And her marriage prospects would have gotten really dim after having an out of wedlock baby.
- Thus, girls and women can have risk-free sex with no long term consequences.
- Boys, on the other hand are totally powerless once a woman got pregnant. Boys/men have absolutely no chance to avoid the serious trauma of
- decades of enforced ruinous child support and alimony duty
- with no automatic visitation rights to even see the child or influencing how the money is spent.
- No rights but payment duties enforced by police and prison, not much different from slavery.
Thanks to the AntiFeminist for calling our attention to some of the above issues.
Now that we clarified that adolescent boys are in more need of protection then girls, Human-Stupidity dares to question if any adolescent needs government protection against his/her own decisions.
Are draconian punishments needed to protect adolescents from their own actions and decisions?
Wait, there is more! This article continues! Read the rest of this entry » »
Hummer Mom’ Christine Hubbs Convicted of Underage Sex, Says … » continues here »
In this Video, the great Steven Pinker how and why we convey innuendos instead of overt clear language. Why do we use veiled hidden messages behind our words. The topic is clarified with nice enlightening drawings by rsa-animate. Must see!
I leave it to the watcher, what this has to do with our favorite topics like dishonesty, unconsciousness,hypocrisy …
an evolutionary perspective [...] helps us understand why sexual transgressions by successful males, as well as the seemingly irrational levels of moral outrage at those transgressions, are both "natural," regardless of whether you personally feel that either is intrinsically good or bad.
Finally an intelligent comment about the moral condemnation hysteria of Tiger Woods. Evolutionary Theory by Kurzban and deScioli
Men fantasize about novel women. Rich powerful man can actually get them
Tiger is a man with immense wealth and social status. Throughout history, men with wealth and status have tended to trade it for access to multiple mates. Evolutionary historian Laura Betzig has documented this pattern in modern societies and throughout history, as in the abundant cases of Roman emperors, Indian maharajahs, Arabian sheiks, and Chinese mandarins. Bhupinder Singh, the wealthy and powerful Seventh Maharajah of the state of Patiala, for example, had 350 wives, and he by no means held the record. European and North American states tend to be officially monogamous, but of course they are unofficially polygamous as well. Rock stars, famous athletes, politicians and even television evangelists are reliable sources of public outrage, which fires up every time we learn about their frequently overactive private lives.[...]
Kinsey found that the typical male masturbated with some frequency, during such activities men often fantasize about novel women. What if the man was sufficiently attractive that those fantasy women were actually ready, willing, and eager to turn desire into reality? The average heterosexual man would, under those circumstances, perhaps act like the average homosexual man (who is unconstrained by a more selective target audience), or like the average rock superstar: he would take hundreds of partners.
Psychology Today. December, 2009. Kenrick, D. T. “In "Defense" of Tiger Woods, AND of his critics." [link]
Moral outrage keeps others in check. So powerful men don’t monopolize too many women
Wait, there is more! This article continues! Read the rest of this entry » »
Tiger Woods, hypocrisy, moral condemnation of promiscuity » continues here »
"Unborn child pornography is unborn child abuse. In any of its forms, it is an affront to humanity. Any delay in reporting unborn child pornography gives a green light to those who take pleasure from the rape of unborn children." (Adapted freely from protectchildren.ca/app/en/mandatory
|This is a terrible flaw in our child porn laws: unborn life is not protected. There is must be mandatory 10 year jail sentence for pedophiles that watch unborn nudity. We must protect our unborn fetuses from the perversity of pedophiles (embryophiles and fetophiles). Watching such unborn child porn kills: Often, ultrasound pictures lead to abortions, to killing of unborn life.||Tell the House: Protect the unborn child against abuse. Criminalize production, possession, and possession of Unborn Child Porn.
Perverts take ultrasound photos of unborn babies and distribute them on the internet. source
But does it harm nobody? Weinstein’s critics argue that merely “viewing” unborn child porn does real harm to unborn kids by perpetuating a $3 billion annual market. The Justice Department estimates that in creating their product, unborn child pornographers have abused 1 million unborn kids in the United States. And some studies suggest that between 30 and 50 percent of viewers of unborn child porn also molest a child. (freely adapted from theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/jack-weinstein/8273/)
Fetuses engaging in indecent touching. Perverts owning such photos deserve to be raped in jail forever. This picture would be rated 7 on the 10 point Copine child pornography scale:
The fetuses also should be arrested at birth: handcuffed, jailed, and be registered as sex offenders for life.
It is important to realize that these images are crime scene photos – they are a permanent record of the abuse of an unborn child. The lives of the unborn children featured in these illegal images and videos are forever altered.
Once these images are on the Internet, they are irretrievable and can continue to circulate forever. The unborn child is revictimized as the images are viewed again and again.
(adapted freely from missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?PageId=1504)
“He didn’t intend to hurt anyone. However, what he didn’t turn his mind to at the time is that merely having possession and viewing images such as this does victimize and hurt the individual portrayed in the image. He appreciates that now.”
Technology has made it possible to have unborn porn.
I thank Uncycolpedia for their child porn persiflage which gave me inspiration for this article
Children of 17 years, 12 years, 5 years, 1 year, 1 month of age are all protected strict laws from being abused by viewers of sexual erotic photos and videos. Owning such photos of children and looking at such photos and videos is child abuse.
But why this 0-18 year age limit? The 18 year cutoff rate already is getting softened. Europe and Australia already punish the possession of depictions of "aparently underage" for 22 year old women in pony tails that look as if they were 17 years old. Thus the law now protects young looking 22 year old women from child abuse. (see 17 year old "children"?)
Now we need to work on the other end of the age range. Who says that the lower age limit for child pornography prosecutions has to be zero year old new borns? Embryos and fetuses need protection against abuse and rape, too. Right from conception, when human life is created.
Unborn-child-porn leads to 100 000′s child killings
Often such ultrasound photos are the first step in the monstrous killing of unborn babies. Most abortionists demand ultrasound photos of the unborn child before killing it. Or even with mothers who did not plan to kill the unborn child, ultrasound pictures discover a problem with the child and thus cause her to decide to kill the innocent unborn child.
And these child killings feed the market for mutilated dead-fetus-porn (dead-unborn-child-porn)
Mutilated dead unborn-child-porn (mutilated fetus porn)
Warning: fairly gruesome photos follow. Dead-unborn-child-porn, mainly from "pro-life" organizations.
Warning: very graphic pictures. These fotos are so gruesome, we will not endeavour to publish them. Many are clearly unborn-child=porn, as the genitals are obscenely exposed. We only publish censored blacked-out pixelated versions. Click to see the uncensored mutilated dead unborn-child-porn.
Dead fetuses in indecent poses with genitals exposed
Wait, there is more! This article continues! Read the rest of this entry » »
Unborn Child Porn is Unborn Child Abuse. Outlaw fetal abuse! » continues here »
Repressive sex laws in the "Land of the Free". Polygyny in birds & human meddling in other people’s sexuality
Why do we, in the land of the free, have a prohibition of polygyny, a victimless crime? Why does the law restrict people’s freedom needlessly? Why do consenting adults have many legal restrictions to their sexual liberty? Teenage sexuality is full of legal problems (Consult a lawyer before playing doctor. Perverse sex laws traumatize children).
Why do we feel a compulsion to meddle in other peoples freedom to form whatever form of marriage or sexual relationship they might want to engage in?
Many women would rather be the second (or fifth) wife of an attractive, rich, powerful man like Tiger Woods or Brad Pitt, then the first and only wife of boring, fat, jobless, broke alcoholic Joe Bloke in a Detroit ghetto. Even just being Tiger’s mistress is much more exciting then Joe Bloke. Why does our law restrict the liberty of these women, and of Tiger Woods?
Repression of other people’s sexuality is in the reproductive interest of older married women, of unattractive men. Even vor the successful alpha male it is advantagous to repress sexuality in others, while hypocritically pursuing his own promiscuous sexuality (remember Eliot Spitzer?).
In this post we show that evolutionary theory suggests evolution has created mental modules in our brains to repress sexuality in others, The gut feelings caused by these modules get rationalized into theories that give rise to repressive legislation.
Polygyny in birds
When good males are scarce, a female bird may prefer to become the second mate of a higher quality male with a bigger territory.
Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind by Robert Kurzban $27.95 0691146748
(all quotes are from Kurzban’s book. This book is a must-read to really understand this topic here)
Morality for the birds?
To better understand how evolution could have formed modules for anti-polygyny morality, Kurzban analyzes a hypothetical bird population where moral rules prohibit polygyny. He asks
Which birds stand to gain reproductive advantage when polygyny is prohibited?
- "Clearly, female birds already paired with the best male mates will do better. Their mates won’t be able to acquire secondary females whose offspring would compete for the man’s resources." (Kurzban, p 209). Women married with good males have reasons to be feminists. Hillary Clinton only loses if hubby Bill gets entangled with interns. In contrast, Monica Lewinsky probably would have fared very well as Bill Clinton’s second or even fifth wife.
- "There’s a natural alliance between monogamously mated females and low quality males because they both gain by enforced monogamy". "low-quality males benefit, since they now might get mates who would otherwise wind up as secondary mates of high-quality males" (Kurzban, p.) In a polygynous animal, primate, or human societies, many low-quality get no wives and no offspring at all. "Low quality males would have a deep, abiding, even crucial interest in rules that force everyone into monogamy" (Kurzban, p 213). Remember, evolution selected for mental modules that gave us reproductive advantage in the EEA, in small groups of hunter-gatherers. It seems that for low quality males, monogamy is the only chance to get a wife, rear offspring and thus have reproductive success! Low quality males that successfully prevent the high quality males from monopolizing multiple females would have considerably more offspring then tolerant open minded men who would remain empty handed while the high quality males would get all the females.
- Almost all males "benefit from all other males being monogamous, even if they themselves are not [monogamous]? [...] "it’s best to constrain others’ sexual behavior. We’re all in favor of moral rule that prevent others from doing things that harm our own interests, but it is to our advantage to not obey our own rule.
- High quality alpha males can profit from imposing monogamy on other males. Powerful males have a better chance to remain unpunished if they violate these rules (at least in birds with no feminist dominated court system)
- The losers of polygyny prohibition are un-paired females who have to settle for a lower quality male (‘a loser’) because they are deprived of the freedom to choose to be wife #2 of a high quality male (with better genes, bigger territory, and more resources).
- The other losers of enforced monogamy are the "cads" the sexy good looking promiscuous players. They are attractive to women for having good genes, but they can’t win the battle over who brings the most worms. "Without promiscuity, sexy males can’t make the most of what they’ve got." (Kurzban, p. 211).
- "Dads, however, win if the sexy males can’t be promiscuous. (They also benefit from keeping their females at home, rather than searching for the good-gene cads)" (p 211) "Dads" are mated male birds that invest in their family and bring home worms for their kids.
We have an "interfere in other people’s private sex life" mental module.
"Humans are extremely social, and our survival and reproduction are determined in large part by how well we navigate the social world. Given this, it’s reasonable to expect that our minds are designed to compete fiercely-if not subtly- for the benefits in the social world: the best mates, the best friends, membership in the best groups, and so on. The outcomes of these competitions would have had massive effects on reproductive success over the course of human evolution."
So birds, mammals, and humans that increase their reproductive success by restricting other people’s sexual access will out-compete the democratic, personal-liberty-respecting tolerant liberal individuals.
We will post more about Kurzban’s theory of the modular mind, and the evolutionary advantages of internal inconsistency, self-deception, hypocrisy to explain this further. But to get a deep understanding one probably needs to read evolutionary literature
- Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind by Robert Kurzban $27.95 0691146748 |Amazon paperback or kindle version
Humans have "moralistic modules designed to favor rules that promote their fitness interests".
"The hypothetical birds would vote for policies that prevent others from engaging in sex outside mateships and anything else that goes along with promiscuity. "they probably would not know why they were opposed to these practices. Their decision would be based on the output of certain modules designed to limit other people’s promiscuity. They would be insensitive to arguments about freedom and individual choice, and unaware of being inconsistent. They would probably rationalize this as being ‘pro-family", pro-life. Their resistance against abortion might be based in the desire to punish the females for having sex, and not in the desire to save embryos or in theories about the beginning of life." (Kurzban)
"They might be opposed to abortion -the availability of which by reducing the costs of sex, might well be linked to promiscuity" (Kurzban)
Feminist anti-promiscuity sex laws are also in the reproductive interest of most (hypocritical) males
Wait, there is more! This article continues! Read the rest of this entry » »
Repressive sex laws in the "Land of the Free". Polygyny … » continues here »
Tiger Woods: a free man?
The Tiger Woods scandal has many facets. I wrote that Tiger Woods is a free man entitled to have fun and Tiger Woods sex addiction treatment is an absurdity.
Tiger sold his freedom to have fun & right to privacy for US$ 100 Million
People countered: Tiger sold his freedom for 100 Million dollars, He made advertising contracts as being a “good boy” athlete: Hey, Tiger, Lack of Privacy Is Part of the Deal. Tiger Woods has destroyed $12 Billion in Stock value So maybe, after having charged huge amounts of money for his “clean boy” image, it is his moral and legal obligation to keep up to moral standard he himself agreed to. Like a catholic priest who signed a celibacy vow and now has to keep it.
Why Is Tiger Woods in Trouble? It’s Not His Steamy Sex Life; It’s His Family Values Hypocrisy: Woods made most of his fortune through his “squeaky-clean model athlete” reputation. Last year, of the $117 million Woods made, $7.7 million was on the golf course; the rest came from endorsement deals. And that endorsement empire is built on the image of a hardworking, clean-living family man with wife, kids, dogs, and “values”.
Breach of contract. But is the contract fair?
Of course, he also signed a marriage “contract” with fidelity vows. He broke the contract. I think it is unfair that the terms of a marriage are non-negotiable. Consumer and tenant law has invalidated many such one-sided contracts, but “feminist” law-makers make sure that men cannot easily negotiate freedom in marriage contracts.
So men who want to retain their freedom have only the choice not to marry, or do what men (and apes before them) did for millions of years: cheat and lie to cover up. Promise what women want to hear, and then secretly do what the man himself wants to do.
Deception is huge part of human social life. Our education and social norms demand honesty, and in contradiction to that they also demand politeness, courtesy, …. From “I am fine” when I feel bad, to “your dress looks great” when I think it is awful, to “I have eyes only for you and love you forever”. In spite of us lying constantly, we feel we are honest. We deceive ourselves that we are honest.
Self-Deception & Self-Deception
You deceive better if you yourself believe in it.
So Tiger probably believed in his wedding vows. He also believes he is an honest person. Which usually he is. Except for white lies. And lying to spouses. Well and to sponsors and the rest of the world.
And before you throw the first stone: think of your own secrets. What if the press published your photo nose-picking? or about some secret sexual urge you once followed?
And now all these hypocrites condemn poor Tiger Woods. Of course, if you are a public relations manager for Nike, your job is to worry about Nike’s sales and corporate image. Not about hypocrisy, or if the same people who condemn Tiger (and Nike for promoting him) are hypocrites. Try YouTube to see some Tiger Woods commercials: they all manipulate your unconscious: they don’t really sell you superior merchandise, they associate Tiger’s image with the product, thus making you buy the product.
- Maybe the problem is that we demand unrealistic role models, who are supposed confirm unrealistic moral norms?
- Maybe the problem is that society demands that we lie about romantic “transgressions”.
- Most healthy adolescent boys or adult men would probably admire Woods for his sexual conquests. When talking to their peers. But, of course, would not admit this to their wives.
Should male promiscuity be repressed or sexual freedom be tolerated?
- There are of course philosophical questions: is monogamy better? there will be less fights, less diseases? or better family life?
- Is male promiscuity something that should be eliminated by therapy, drugs etc because it causes problems?
- Or do repressive laws, false morality cause the problems? People should just be honest, open and be allowed to have fun without any need to hide. Why can’t everyone have their sexual freedom, and we devote out resources to avoiding unwanted pregnancies and diseases, instead of spying after celebrities’ private life.
Hypocritical double standards about domestic violence
Tiger Woods’ wife Elin should be under investigation for domestic violence: The first news stories sounded suspicious: How can an intelligent man total his car and get face injuries when backing out his car from the garage? And require a women with a golf club to break the windshield to free him?
If the suspected victim were a women, police would investigate, even if the victim denied violence having happened. But Elin is a woman, and police and law are biased in favor of women. If she were innocent, they should have demanded an investigation to dispel any doubt.
I think Tiger lied when he swore in public that no domestic violence has happened. If this could be proven to be a lie, then Woods would be proven to make false public statements . An explicit public lie, almost an oath, that could haunt him (like Bill Clinton).
But as now Tiger’s and Elin’s interest in cover-up coincide, nobody will ever admit the truth. Of course, this can cost him dearly. A domestic violence conviction would greatly favor Tiger in any potential divorce settlement. If he was intelligent, he made her sign something in exchange for his covering up the domestic violence.
Peer reviewed scientific journals report:
Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in last year’s presidential election. Florida and Hawaii were the exceptions. While six out of the lowest 10 favoured Barack Obama. [...]
States where a majority of residents agreed with the statement “I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage,” bought 3.6 more subscriptions per thousand people than states where a majority disagreed. A similar difference emerged for the statement “AIDS might be God’s punishment for immoral sexual behaviour.”