I wanted to add to this… if you take all these supposedly “mentally ill” men, and you simply gave them sexual partners who were friends with them, they would stop being mentally ill and suicidal… the problem is that sexual neglect triggers neuro-biological symptoms, and they can only be cured with sexual flooding.
But people don’t want to admit this. I think someone quickly added something about “would you consider a prostitute?” As if prostitution is the solution to this conundrum of nice guys not getting sex - the biggest flaw in this argument is that prostitution doesn’t have a screening system, AND the people who tend to have the money for it tend to be wealthier, because nice men don’t hoarde wealth, if a candy bar cost a penny to make… they’d sell it for 2 cents and give the people who put a roof over them and their employees heads profit sharing just for simply putting a roof over their head. The reason that men don’t do this, is because they get less sexual choice, which is why we have such high social stratification.
a. You don’t know that.
b. Even if that’s true, it has no relevance to our actual lives.
I’m not representing myself as an expert. Rather, I’m citing the findings of experts. You are representing yourself as an expert, with no support whatsoever other than your conjecture.
Again, there are scholarly studies in this field. Genetic tests of people who’ve committed suicide can be tested for the specific genetic markers associated with impulse control, and suicide. Whether a person who’d committed suicide had been diagnosed with a mental illness can be discovered, and tabulated. This is all covered in the paper I linked to.
There’s no reason to rely on your opinions on this matter. We can do better, we have studies.
Cite? And torture is a very uncommon occurrence…it certainly can’t account for 12 suicides per 100,000 in the U.S., for instance.
Or, that suffering alone doesn’t cause suicide, and that suffering isn’t necessary for a suicide to occur.
You use the word “falsify” occasionally, but you never seem to actually apply it to your conclusion.
Sounds reasonable enough…
Wait, you mean you’ve studied the gender disparity in suicides? You just stated that to conclude what caused suicide, you’d have to know what caused the gender gap…then you leaped right into a conclusion, without any study or data.
It’s not the scientific community that appears to have a great need to try and label suicide as being something it’s not…rather, it’s you.
Saying that a study that hasn’t been done supports your conclusion is a Kafkaesque absurdity.
And no, that more men than women commit suicide does not highly suggest that men who commit suicide are motivated by a lack of sexual partners. It suggests that men and women are prone to different mental illnesses at different rates, and face different cultural pressures.
Sex cures schizophrenia? You’re getting further and further into lunacy here.
As far as I can tell, you’re operating under the belief that only unmarried men without sexual partners (your fabled “nice men”) commit suicide. This is laughably untrue.
If sexual choice effects neuro-biological symptoms, then the study that men have more of these neuro-biological symptoms than women would make much more sense with my theory, it has explanatory power… you see, you say “men have different types of pressures (which I don’t disagree with) and varying levels of perhaps different “mental illnesses” than women do” (my paraphrase of your statement).
What I’m putting forth is that sexual choice determines neuro-biology. If a man doesn’t want his neuro-biology screwed up, he begins to become more aggressive so that women will have sex with him… if he realizes that becoming more aggressive to get women causes species extinction and suffering that leads to suicide and war and rape and etc… etc… and he has a conscience, he won’t act out to get sex from women… and because of the neuro-biological feedback effect, he will keep building stress hormones and suicide.
You totally skirted around my very first point by saying that it doesn’t apply to us… and also saying that I don’t know that… and when I repeated it later, you accused me of jumping to a global conclusion without any study.
I’ll put it to you again very simply… torture and low suicidal tension causes suicide. You don’t think you can get anyone to commit suicide… I disagree wholeheartedly.
You say, that even if you can make anyone commit suicide, that it doesn’t apply… as if there’s not something that can be figured out about suicide, you completely dismissed it, because it didn’t fit into your neat little paper about only impulsive and mentally ill people committing suicide.
The point is that torture causes suicide, and sexual neglect has neuro-biological effects on people, which can be expressed as “mental illness”, which is not really a term I’m fond of using, because I think often the people diagnosing are crazier than their patients. But! The point is that it is always suffering which causes suicide ALWAYS, it’s just that some forms of suffering reach critical mass and others don’t.
There was something about the politics amongst other things, perhaps even sexual politics, in a concentration camp that reduced the suicide rates from the general population, I haven’t studied it enough to know… what I do know is that the suicides were less than the general population. And what I can ascertain from this, is that the conditions of a concentration camp didn’t meet the criteria of critical mass for suffering as much as the general population… suicide is always caused by suffering, the anticipation of future suffering… and abborant things like biting a cyanide capsule when you’re captured (which to some extent is anticipation of future suffering).
As for saying that a study that hasn’t been done supports my conclusion… I tried to address this earlier, but no, you wouldn’t listen.
I KNOW FOR A FACT that suicidal tension is a REAL thing… I have NEVER, nor has ANYONE, ever performed the study that proves it. It’s VERY EASY TO PROVE!
The same is true with the sexual choice studies, only a moron would read my sexual choice studies and say “cite” just like only a moron would read about my studies to prove suicidal tension and say “cite”. The problem is that most people are likely to agree with the suicidal tension study (even though it’s never been done) because the stakes are much lower in terms of denial, when someone starts to say that all war comes from sexual choice, suddenly the stakes are VERY high, and people suddenly can’t see the obvious and spam “cite”, “Cite”, “cite”…
Perhaps. I think people primarily have psychotic breaks because of sexual choice and the brain tries in a multitude of ways to handle it.
That’s not my belief at all, I actually think there are people who figure it out and commit suicide from guilt even though they have partners… or they may figure out that someone they were interested in having sex with had sex with someone more aggressive than them even though they were in a relationship etc…
Asexual people aren’t known for their suicide, perhaps that could say something about how severely this primal urge acts upon human minds when it’s activated.
You know, it’s not totally out there that sex has a huge impact on human psychology and human neuro-biology… I read a paper about a year ago about increased serotonin levels for the bullies who got the most sex, in fact, they get them just from bullying people… but if sex doesn’t come from it, they decrease. I’m trying to remember it… hmm… the introduction of the paper was about how school shootings don’t happen because of video games or violent movies, it talked about how if you actually study why they did it, they unanimously say that they wanted to punish the bullies and the people who has sex with them.
When I was 21 years old, I had a very close friend who committed suicide. His father, who had been a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, had also committed suicide years earlier, when my friend had been about 10 years old.
This friend never lacked for female attention. Always had a girlfriend and always chronically cheated on his girlfriend. Definitely never suffered from a lack of female attention. Yet one day he just snapped. Began seeing his father’s image coming through the television screen to him, telling him things.
His personality and behavior changed drastically and suddenly. He became withdrawn and paranoid, as well as having hallucinations. Within three days, he had blown his brains out with a shotgun.
Now tell me what the fuck his death had to do with sex? He had a genetic predisposition for mental illness (schizophrenia) and he began to show signs of this illness right around the age typically seen in young men (early 20s).
This is an extraordinary claim if there ever once one. If you expect anyone outside yourself to believe that lack of sexual choice changes individual human biology, you need to marshal some pretty impressive evidence.
If I suggested that faith in Christ changed the brain so as to make mental illness impossible, would you accept that as being true? If not, what sort of evidence would you request? If the answer is anything but “lengthy tracts detailing one guy’s opinions”, then you can see the problem here.
[QUOTE=Ecmandu]
You totally skirted around my very first point by saying that it doesn’t apply to us… and also saying that I don’t know that… and when I repeated it later, you accused me of jumping to a global conclusion without any study.
I’ll put it to you again very simply… torture and low suicidal tension causes suicide. You don’t think you can get anyone to commit suicide… I disagree wholeheartedly.
[/quote]
Cool. If this was a discussion about whether a movie was good or not, we could stop there. But it’s not. You’re making factual claims, which means you need factual evidence. Any you have none, or at least none that you’ve presented. It’s neat and all that you believe in this suicide tension concept, but at this point it’s no different than me saying I believe Jennifer Lawrence is a fine actress.
[QUOTE=Ecmandu]
You say, that even if you can make anyone commit suicide, that it doesn’t apply… as if there’s not something that can be figured out about suicide, you completely dismissed it, because it didn’t fit into your neat little paper about only impulsive and mentally ill people committing suicide.
[/quote]
I dismiss objective claims that have no evidence, yes. It’s called a null hypothesis. If I’m to believe your claims with no evidence, then I’d have to believe in crystal healing, homeopathy, Scientology…it’d be a real mess.
[QUOTE=Ecmandu]
The point is that torture causes suicide, and sexual neglect has neuro-biological effects on people, which can be expressed as “mental illness”, which is not really a term I’m fond of using, because I think often the people diagnosing are crazier than their patients. But! The point is that it is always suffering which causes suicide ALWAYS, it’s just that some forms of suffering reach critical mass and others don’t.
There was something about the politics amongst other things, perhaps even sexual politics, in a concentration camp that reduced the suicide rates from the general population, I haven’t studied it enough to know… what I do know is that the suicides were less than the general population. And what I can ascertain from this, is that the conditions of a concentration camp didn’t meet the criteria of critical mass for suffering as much as the general population… suicide is always caused by suffering, the anticipation of future suffering… and abborant things like biting a cyanide capsule when you’re captured (which to some extent is anticipation of future suffering).
[/quote]
Remember the concept of falsification? Can you falsify your theory here? Because I spot a number of avenues to do, and you seem unaware of them, but I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt.
[QUOTE=Ecmandu]
As for saying that a study that hasn’t been done supports my conclusion… I tried to address this earlier, but no, you wouldn’t listen.
[/quote]
I listened, but without a study actually being done, it doesn’t support anyone’s conclusion. That’s just how science works. Sorry if it’s inconvenient.
[QUOTE=Ecmandu]
I KNOW FOR A FACT that suicidal tension is a REAL thing… I have NEVER, nor has ANYONE, ever performed the study that proves it. It’s VERY EASY TO PROVE!
[/quote]
Then you don’t know it for a fact.
[QUOTE=Ecmandu]
The same is true with the sexual choice studies, only a moron would read my sexual choice studies and say “cite” just like only a moron would read about my studies to prove suicidal tension and say “cite”. The problem is that most people are likely to agree with the suicidal tension study (even though it’s never been done) because the stakes are much lower in terms of denial, when someone starts to say that all war comes from sexual choice, suddenly the stakes are VERY high, and people suddenly can’t see the obvious and spam “cite”, “Cite”, “cite”…
[/QUOTE]
When you refer to a study, I’m going to assume you mean a real study, and not your opinion as to the hypothetical outcome of a hypothetical study. I’ve asked you for cites on specific factual claims (such as suicide rates in concentration camps), and you’ve provided absolutely nothing.
You’re enamored of your own opinions. I get that, I get passionate about my opinions of University of Kentucky basketball and the films of Kubrick. But, if you want to present your opinions as being facts, you have to demonstrate those facts to be objectively true.
I don’t know… the only thing I know about suicides from lots of female attention in the frame of my theory is that someone develops a conscience about what they had to do to get that attention (teasing others, flirting with women etc…) and can’t live with themselves.
From my frame of reference, being able to get lots of female attention means that you positively re-enforce rape, war, homicide, suicide, social stratification, under-development of technology, bigotry and torture… so when I look at suicides from people who get lots of this attention, perhaps they figured it out, and realized that if they become nice, the tap will stop flowing…
Why does a wall-street guy jump off a building when they lose all that money? Because the tap will stop flowing…
Once guys realize that nice guys don’t get laid, and they want to be nice… that usually causes it.
I think these are largely subconscious processes. I’m sorry if my frame upsets you, but that’s how I see the world.
Wow! I didn’t realize all the poor men out there who had committed suicide because they could no longer handle the guilt they lived with from knowing what they had done-flirted with all those women-to get all that pussy. :eek:
Of course, if it’s not true that people internally think it’s wrong to flirt with a woman, his theory collapses utterly.
I’d love to hear an explanation for why humanity would have evolved so as to be hardwired to feel guilt over expressing interest in a woman, if you’re up to it, Ecmandu.
I agree sorry I can’t remember the paper… the woman’s last name was “Cannon” I couldn’t find it online.
Hmm… thx for the paper! I had heard through someone that they heard it was lower, it’s interesting to know that it’s not different. I’m not sure how to assimilate that… I mean actually I have a tentative ideas that could logically explain it, but I actually want my theory to be as simple as it can be… I can go on and on and make it more complicated, but I love parsimony. I know asexuals are discriminated against and often feel like people don’t understand them or that society doesn’t represent them, and that may be a factor, but I really don’t know.
So here we are, at a standstill…
I offer that you can increase depression in any species by giving ornate aggression the most sexual choice and you can decrease depression in any species by giving non-ornate or adaptive aggression the most sexual choice, you can even target it to each gender in a species.
I offer that you can increase aggression in any species by giving ornate aggression the most sexual choice and you can decrease aggression by giving more adaptive aggression profiles the most sexual choice.
I also offer that you can condition one gender to be averse to approaches and only allow sex to occur for the other gender when they approach… which will cause the other gender to have increased rates of sexual assault, an you can reverse it to decrease instances of sexual assault.
That’s the study I offer. To truly do this with humans, you’d have to have an INSANE study… like it’s practically impossible to do!!! It might actually be impossible!
Because of the di-morphism problem, it sends out the signal that “no means yes”, because women on a much vaster scale than men, show signs of discomfort at sexually suggestive approaches including signs of even eye contact that shows attraction. This causes all the problems of reward for violating consent to be re-enforced in the species if the only thing that works is that the no’s always become yesses… and the people who don’t try to turn those no’s into yesses don’t get sex at all.
Which reminds me, any conclusions on why one nation might have almost no murders and a fairly high suicide rate, and another (where both homicides and suicides are relatively easy to do, via firearms) have more murders and yet half as many suicides? You said you’d think about, curious if you challenged any of your assumptions about homicide and suicide being linked by a common cause, in light of that.
Yep, here we are. This is what happens without evidence, you can stop by a thread in Cafe Society about movies or music and see the same thing in action.
Note that you don’t have to do these exact studies to back up some of your theories. For example, the notion that human women are hardwired to be averse to romantic approaches, and give off signals that human males are hardwired to interpret as a request to refrain from such approaches.
Nor do you have to do studies to cite some of your factual claims, such as the rate of suicides in concentration camps vs. general European society, or that suicide rates among men are increasing, and have been over the last 60 years.
So the only way any man has ever had sex is through coercion (turning “no” into “yes”)? Not even that “pity sex” you mentioned earlier? What happened to that? And I’ve had plenty of sex and I’m pretty sure I didn’t “violate the consent” of any of the partners I’ve had. So what’s going on here? I’m confused. You sayin’ I’m pitiful?! :dubious:
The part about the difference between Japan and the US isn’t totally out of the realm of my theory, because it states that when you get the homicide and rape rates to zero, which will get the female suicide rates to zero, the male suicide rates won’t budge.
But… I did say that you can’t have a society with no suicides (assuming suicide is easy) and high homicides, which seems to be contradicted by your data, because it would seem then that in places where the homicide rate is higher, the suicide rate would also be higher. Perhaps aggression expresses in different and perhaps more stifling ways in Japan than in the US.
The problem here, is that the parsimony frame I’m quite sure is correct.
I think if you put any species in a large enough group so they generally know who is and isn’t getting sex, and you control who gets the sex, that members of the species will act out or reduce aggression to get sexual choice. I’m very certain of that, and you obviously have the luxury all day of saying it’s nonsense because the study hasn’t been done.
My theory actually explains a lot… you know, some cultures have orgies every week and have reduced suicide rates, other have ceremonies where the men dress like women and try to act as feminine as they can and the women pick them… so clearly people have tried in some cultures to deal with this problem in creative ways. Other cultures take a much darker approach, which is vaginal mutilation, which effects 200 million women, or forcing women to cover themselves, or blaming women for rape… now come at me and ask me why this stuff has been so prevalent and in many parts of the world still is, if some of what I’m saying doesn’t have a grain of truth to it. People don’t just do this stuff for no reason, even if it’s a bad or ill-informed one.
Let me put it this way, there are probably at least 10,000 BIG Hollywood productions going back to the 20’s, where the man wrestles a woman to the wall or whatever as she resists vehemently until she is overcome with passion and begins kissing him… this is so ingrained in the psyche, not only of our culture, but the global culture… asking a woman out is not different than this. If you don’t understand the dimorphism problem, you’ll never understand this.
In what ways, specifically, is asking a woman out similar to the physical act of a man wrestling a woman against her will until she stops resisting and gives in to his physical advances? How is the woman resisting when she says “Sure, let’s go out sometime! I’d love that!”, in response to the man asking her out?
What happened to that? And I’ve had plenty of sex and I’m pretty sure I didn’t “violate the consent” of any of the partners I’ve had. So what’s going on here? I’m confused. You sayin’ I’m pitiful?! :dubious: