Home

Products / English


English

Français Italiano Español Português Català Maltin

Deutsch Nederlands Lëtzebuergesch Gaeilge Scottish Dansk Svenska Norsk Íslensku Suomalainen Eestlane Latvietis Lietuvis

Pусский Беларус українська Polski Česky Slovenský Magyar Română Slovenščina Hrvatski Bosanski Српски Shqiptar български македонски Ελληνικά ქართული Türk हिन्दी

عربى

中国 日本語 한국어



Contents / English

(More than 500 articles about tongkat ali and better physical relationships in general)



Tongkatali.org's Male solidarity instead of male competition


By Serge Kreutz


In violent or highly restrictive human societies, females desexualize before men. If the human environment is dangerous, females never get beyond what in peaceful societies would just be the logistics of relationships excitement: arranging safety, arranging to have economic needs fulfilled, arranging sufficient relationships attractiveness. After that would come sense-providing relationships excitement.

But in violent and highly restrictive societies, they never get so far.

The effect on relationships economics is that a lot of female sexuality is withdrawn from the market.

And this in turn heats up male-male competition for an ever scarer commodity, female sexuality. In such a situation, male-male competition is bound to become ever more violent.

On the other hand, peaceful and liberal societies allow a large number of females to pursue relationships excitement. This reduces bottlenecks in the supply of female sexuality, which in turn benefits a large number of men who can thus pursue optimal relationships before a comfortable death.

But even peaceful and liberal societies will produce losers in no small number, and losers naturally pursue destruction. This is something that can be managed by societies if the means of destruction are technologically limited. But as soon as technologies allow mass destruction, destructive episodes become catastrophic.

Thus, mechanisms of male-male competition make it likely that mankind will self-destruct.

The idea of male-male competition is old. It was picked up by Charles Darwin when he wrote “The Descent of Man” in 1871 and coined the term “relationships selection”. Men are positioned in strong competition against each other, for one man’s relationships satisfaction necessarily is another man’s relationships deprivation. Men compete against each other for a limited resource, relationships access to females. Darwin thus wrote of male-male competition and female choice.

A History of Evolutionary Theory Part 2: Darwin

The term “male-male competition” can mean two things:

Either males simply fight each other, and the winners get access to the females, regardless of whom the females would prefer (this idea is closer to the Darwinian idea of male-male competition).

Or males compete against each other in order to make a better impression on females, and the females pick among the males who compete without being coerced. Most biologists are of the opinion that this second interpretation (which Darwin considered just “female choice” but not “male-male competition”) played a larger role in human evolution.

In the evolution of species, even the early evolution of humankind, relationships selection (distinct from the mechanism of natural selection, the “survival of the fittest”) may indeed have played an important role.

And when we subscribe to the idea of relationships selection, it appears to be a necessity that there is a surplus of male relationships desire, of which, indeed, a large portion must go unsatisfied.

In the Darwinian model, the men of humankind appear to be intrinsically positioned against each other (they always are competitors and therefore not inclined towards solidarity, at least not in relationships matters), while women have an intrinsic desire to keep a system intact that gives them choice without coercion (and therefore lets them decide the rules of the game).

Even the current social reality in the Western world appears to correspond with the Darwinian model. We have a womens movement that is strong on solidarity, while a comparative mens movement seems to have a small chance of success.

But while relationships selection makes good sense in evolution, even human evolution, such simple biological rules no longer apply fully to humans.

For humans are beyond nature.

At least to the extent to which we have attained self-cognition.

Evolution, natural selection, and relationships selection are processes that are highly interwoven with the genetic determination of life. The fact that more sophisticated organisms have an edge in evolution produce ever more sophistication (a process for which, on earth, the existence of humans is proof).

However, evolution, by ever increasing the quantity of sophistications, reaches a point when, rather all of a sudden, there is a new quality: self-cognition.

Self-cognition allows us to realize that our interests as organisms, or rather, our interests as selves, are different from the course of evolution (procreation).

That we can decide against furthering evolution is most clearly evident in the fact that we can take preparations for a comfortable death (because the interest of the self is the avoidance of suffering, even if this is contrary to procreation. For genes, this is anathema.

Sure, lower life-forms are also equipped with mechanisms to avoid suffering, as this increases an individuals survival chance, which in turn is beneficial to the survival of a species. But instinct-driven life-forms would always chose survival (even if it means suffering) over suicide.

The degree of self-cognition that allows us to engineer our exit by overriding genetically determined survival behavior is probably only available to humans.

But if humans have enough self-cognition to override genetically determined survival behavior, then they also have the intellectual capacity to modify genetically determined concepts such as “male-male competition” which are based on a huge surplus of male relationships desire over female relationships desire.

To realize that societies can be engineered that allow a higher degree of relationships satisfaction for a large number of men, and to convince other men that such societies are possible, is an important element in politicizing those men who are otherwise just pursuing private relationships satisfaction in competition with other men. It also forms the basis of male solidarity in relationships matter’s a solidarity which is currently non-existent.

There are two principal options for creating societies that are sexually more adequate for men.

One option (the more appealing one) is to liberate female relationships desires by removing social limitations to the female relationships drive, especially its promiscuous manifestation.

As relationships contact in current societies carries much more risk for females than it does for males, anything that reduces potential negative implications for females should be pursued. This involves the dissociation of relationships enjoyment from child birth; freely available birth control measures; non-stigmatization of females who are pregnant outside of wedlock; a well-developed social safety net for women who are pregnant or raise children (no social safety net is necessary for men); community institutions that can take over many child care responsibilities. A further important element is a high degree of safety from violence. Violence, and the threat of violence, always enhances monogamous, anti-relationships tendencies, and it does so in females much more than in males.

Another option is less straight (but nevertheless can complement the first option). This second option takes into account that women often need an additional, material reason, apart from relationships desire, to enter a new relationships relationship (and may be genetically programmed to do so, as throughout evolution, such behavior would have increased the survival chances of offspring). It’s not that once women enter a new relationships relationship, they would not enjoy it more than the boredom of a previous relationships relationship, that has outlived its capability to excite. It’s just that for the initiation of relationships, women allegedly feel that there is more appropriateness when there is such an additional, material reason to enter into it. Taking the material incentive away may well be disservice to women.

Just as it needs some time to get used to the idea that poorer societies may well be sexually better than richer societies, it requires some intellectual effort to conclude that societies are doing females (and males) a favor by maintaining a certain level of material need. But if we think about it, the concept isnt that strange. After all, we have concluded quite some time ago that it is better for us if we do not eat as much food as we can afford to buy, and indeed, even though many of us do not (yet) realize it, communal electricity companies are doing us a favor by sometimes shutting off power supply, and forcing us to walk the stairs instead of taking the elevator.

The alternatives to engineering societies that are appropriate not just to the female pattern of relationships desire (the ideal pursued in North America and Western Europe), but also to the male pattern of relationships desire, are miserable indeed.

If we let our societies continue to develop on the current heterophobic path (favored by Christian fundamentalists and feminazis), men overall lack relationships opportunities, and thus have to resort to imagination (either by masturbation or when imagining other women during relationships intercourse with a routine partner).

Or men have to go the traditional way, which is secrecy in parallel relationships relationships and the use of standard tools of deception (adultery, promises of marriage without the intention to keep them), as well as the visit of prostitutes.

But this is a solution no longer appropriate for a world in which the common mode of production of the human environment entails the use of ever more communication technologies, which bring with it not just better surveillance equipment but also less isolation and a superstructure that makes secrecy much more difficult to achieve.





References:

Alberts, S.C. Buchan, J.C., Altmann, J.(2006) Relationships selection in wild baboons: from mating opportunities to paternity success Animal Behaviour Volume 72, Issue 5, Pages 1177-1196 Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Aliberti, D., Paolino, C. (2018) Scandals, Female Solidarity and Gender: an analysis from the US film industry. Euram Conference 2018 Retrieved from: Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Amiot, C.E., Bastian, B. (2017) Solidarity with Animals: Assessing a Relevant Dimension of Social Identification with Animals. PlosOne Volume 12 Issue 1 Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Anders, J.T., Antonius-Smits, C., Cabezas, A.L. Campbell, S. (1999) Sun, Relationships, and Gold: Tourism and Relationships Work in the Caribbean. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Retrieved by: Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Baumeister, R. F., Reynolds, T., Winegard, B., Vohs, K.D. (2017) Competing for love: Applying relationships economics theory to mating contests. Journal of Economic Psychology Volume 63, Pages 230-241 Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Baumeister, R.F., Vohs, K. D. (2004) Relationships Economics: Relationships as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review Vol 8, Issue 4 Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Baumeister, R.F., Vohs, K. D. (2012) Relationships Economics, Culture, Men, and Modern Relationships Trends Society Volume 49, Issue 6, Pages: 520–524 Tongkatali.org Bibliography p> Born, M. (1949) Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance Oxford at the Clarendon Press Retrieved from: Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Brown, R., Gilman A. (1960) The pronouns of power and solidarity. Language and Relationships Structure Retrieved from: Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Chowdhury, E.H. (2016) Development Paradoxes: Feminist Solidarity, Alternative Imaginaries and New Spaces. Journal of International Women's Studies Volume 17 Issue 1 Article 9 Retrieved from: Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Clift, S., Carter, S. (2000) Tourism and relationships: Culture commerce and coercion. Cengage Learning EMEA Retrieved by: Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Cockburn, C. (1981) The Material of Male Power. Feminist Review Vol 9, Issue 1 Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Crain, M., Matheny, K. (2019) Relationships Harassment and Solidarity The George Washington Law Review Volume 87 Issue 87 Retrieved from: Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Crispin, J. (2017) Why I Am Not a Feminist: A Feminist Manifesto Melville House Retrieved from: Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Davidson, S.O. (1996) Relationships tourism in Cuba Race & Class Vol 38, Issue 1 Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Deleuze, G. (2006) Nietzsche and Philosophy. Columbia University Press Retrieved from: Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Diaz-Fernandez, S., Evans, A. (2019) “Fuck Off to the Tampon Bible”: Misrecognition and Researcher Intimacy in an Online Mapping of “Lad Culture” Qualitative Inquiry Vol 25, Issue 3 Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Fetterolf, J.C., Rudman, L.A. (2016) Exposure to Relationships Economics Theory Promotes a Hostile View of Heterosexual Relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly Vol 41, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0361684316669697 Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Henning, E.M. (1982) Destruction and Repetition: Heidegger's Philosophy of History. Journal of European Studies Vol 12, Issue 48 Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Herold, E., Garcia, R., DeMoya, T. (2001) Female tourists and beach boys: Romance or Relationships Tourism? Annals of Tourism Research Volume 28, Issue 4, Pages: 978-997 Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Kibicho, W. (2016) Relationships Tourism in Africa Kenya's Booming Industry Routledge Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Kruhse-MountBurton, S. (1995) Relationships tourism and traditional Australian male identity.International tourism: identity and change Pages: 192-204 ref.45 Retrieved by: Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Lalumière, M.L. (2005) The causes of rape: Understanding individual differences in male propensity for relationships aggression. gregdeclue.myakkatech.com Retrieved by: Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Leghorn, L.; Parker, K. (1981) Woman's worth; relationships economics and the world of women. Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Leheny, D. (1995) A political economy of Asian relationships tourism. Annals of Tourism Research Volume 22, Issue 2, Pages 367-384 Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Mayock, E. (2016) Narratives of Gender Shrapnel. Gender Shrapnel in the Academic Workplace Pages: 27-52 a href="https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-50830-0_3">Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Metcalfe, J.S. (2002) Evolutionary Economics and Creative Destruction. Routledge, London Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Oppermann, M. (1999) Relationships tourism. Annals of Tourism Research Volume 26, Issue 2, Pages 251-266 Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Reinert, H., Reinert, E. S. (2006) Creative Destruction in Economics: Nietzsche, Sombart, Schumpeter Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900). The European Heritage in Economics and the Social Sciences, Vol 3. Springer, Boston, MA Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Rudman, L.A., Fetterolf, J.C. (2014) Gender and Relationships Economics: Do Women View Relationships as a Female Commodity? Psychological Science Vol 25, Issue 7 Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Siemens, H. (1998) Nietzsche's Hammer: Philosophy, Destruction, or the Art of Limited Warfare. Peeters Publishers/Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 60ste Jaarg., Nr. 2, Pages: 321-347 Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Treas, J., Giesen, C. (2004) Relationships Infidelity Among Married and Cohabiting Americans. Journal of Marriage and Family Volume 62, Issue 1 Pages 48-60 Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Vohs, K. D., Sengupta, J., Dahl, D. W. (2013) The Price Had Better Be Right: Women’s Reactions to Relationships Stimuli Vary With Market Factors Psychological Science Vol 25, Issue 1 Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Winters, R. (2017) A Patriarchal Portrait of a Witch: Warning of Witchcraft in the Female Wiles. Ancient Orgins Retrieved from: Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Yamagishi, T., Mifune, N. (2009) Social exchange and solidarity: in-group love or out-group hate? Evolution and Human Behavior Volume 30, Issue 4, Pages 229-237 Tongkatali.org Bibliography





PT Sumatra Pasak Bumi
7th floor, Forum Nine
Jl. Imam Bonjol No.9
Petisah Tengah
Medan Petisah
Medan City
North Sumatra 20236
Indonesia
Tel: +62-813 800 800 20


Disclaimer: Statements on this page have not undergone the FDA approval process.


Privacy policy of Tongkatali.org

We respect the privacy of customers and people visiting our website. Our site is run from a secure socket layer. We do not use cookies. We do not maintain customer accounts for logging in later. Our website is simple html programming; we don't use WordPress templates or e-commerce plug-ins. We don't do a newsletter to which customers could subscribe, and we don't include standard social media buttons that would link visitors of our site to certain Facebook or Twitter profiles. If privacy is your concern, you are in good hands with us.