Value and Protect Your Daughters - and Teach Your Sons

The ongoing phenomena of disintegrating families and how the negative consequences therefrom spread brings to mind a theory I’ve developed about the process young females use in choosing mates and how this affects society as a whole. The theory germinated from a study I saw years ago in which it was found that when a young woman is ovulating [and hence, most fertile], she is more receptive to sex -- and during that time, tends to be attracted to the "rugged, unreliable" types.

Testosterone tends to make a person aggressive, irritable, energetic, pugnacious -- and maybe a bit inconsiderate. Young females who are just coming of age are, in some ways, even more animalistic then the males. The young females’ choices may seem to be non-sensical, because they don’t tend to be introspective about the mechanism of their attraction to the males who get their attention. Hence, when asked what they look for in a young man, many of their answers tend to be vague and even contradictory. They are, in fact, sniffing testosterone -- and one identifier of same is what people who know better would recognize as an assholish personality.

[That explained why in my youth, many of young women I encountered seemed to be hell-bent on offering themselves to the worst possible jerks they could find -- and regarding those who were good to them as boring and/or only “friend” material.]

Young males’ attraction, by contrast, is simple and obvious: It is based upon physical characteristics that indicate fertility -- and they are driven to pollinate as many flowers as they possibly can. Both of these reptilian-type urges are useful with respect to pure animalistic reproduction, but given the unique vulnerabilities and needs of our species, they must be tempered.

For the sake of the family and the community at large, discipline and discretion must be applied when choosing mates for reproduction; for humans, there is a far greater commitment and obligation involved. Being strong, fertile and potent are not enough to produce suitable members of a civilized society. There needs to be a vetting process, and it must be directed by those who care -- and have experience and maturity.

Human beings are social creatures, particularly so due to our cerebral cortex. We depend upon each other for survival and to maximize our respective potentials. Our offspring are essentially born premature, so the mother's hips can accommodate the head during childbirth. Then the majority of the brain and body development takes place outside the womb.

[Other mammals' offspring can drop from their mothers and within minutes be on their feet or have enough strength to cling to their mothers w/o being held. Long, strong limbs can apparently be passed through the birth canal easier than a relatively large cranium.]

Hence, our offspring are particularly helpless at birth and take a much larger proportion of an average lifespan to get to the point in which they can sustain themselves. It is thus optimal that both parents stay together during the entire process of development in order to give their children the best chance of surviving to reproductive age -- and eventually having productive lives as well as being net gains to the community.

Our social structure and values are also, then, part of Natural Selection -- and hence, there is competition on a biological level between communities as well. Child-rearing and traditions that help the individual, family and society at large to thrive [work ethic, consideration of others, valuing education] will be selected favorably. Habits that tend to manifest negatively [criminality, mental illness, substance abuse] will undermine the given tribe's ability to flourish.

Girls who are raised by the mothers and fathers who made them will more likely have their suitors vetted by both parents -- and a father knows only too well how a young man's mind works. An engaged and caring father will make sure that he meets any boy who comes for his daughter and determines whether he can be trusted to sublimate his urges when he is alone with her.

[This process was illustrated eloquently by a man of Irish descent I knew who grew up in Howard Beach, Queens. He told me that he would take a boy aside who came to pick up his daughter and entreat him with the following stipulation: “If you wanna touch a [vagina], go home to yer mutha, ‘cuz if ya touch my dotta, I’ll fookin’ kill ya!” That is one effective means -- that is uniquely available to fathers -- to inspire a young lad to exercise self-control.]

For the reasons given above, young females essentially need to be protected from themselves, because they cannot be trusted to select their potential mates w/o close supervision. Otherwise, they will breed with the “rugged, unreliable” types to whom they are naturally attracted when they are immature and inexperienced.

A society that fails to recognize -- and hence instill -- how precious our future mothers are and what a great honor and responsibility it is for a male to be selected to father children, has a great deal going against it indeed. Too many girls in our society are raised -- through neglect and poor role-modeling -- to think that they must service males sexually in order to gain acceptance and security. Too many boys are raised to think that sex is primarily a matter of power and that it is socially permissible to make babies and then abandon them.

And it certainly does not help that a juvenile attitude toward sex dominates Western civilization: Sex is primarily about pleasure and a baby is to be regarded as a STD -- and dealt with as such. This only serves to exacerbate the devaluation of women of child-bearing age, because the men know that the “unwanted” offspring can be removed from the womb, so the erstwhile mother can then be promptly made available to resume draining mens’ gonads.

Stigma against mentalities and behaviors that are harmful to society as a whole are absolutely useful and beneficial. We simply would not be here if not for taboos that our ancestors developed from direct experience. Having no social consequences for those who bring criminals, drug-addicts and psychos into the world spreads the deleterious effects to the community at large.

Hence, we witness a self-perpetuating cycle in which young women are reproducing with a series of low-lifes and sociopaths, whose toxic genes are carried forth into the succeeding generations -- instead of being culled as they otherwise would be. That, and the phenomenon of boys and girls being raised w/o fathers combine to spread a cancer of poor genetics and poor values throughout the community -- to its long-term detriment.

The Great Society and War on Poverty starting in the 1960s put into practice the notion that black fathers are unsuitable for parenting and are therefore best replaced by white female social workers who wear sensible shoes. Hence, the black family was fundamentally transformed from being in the majority of cases intact, to the current spectacle of 70% of their children being born out-of-wedlock. The devastating results are as obvious as is how the actual root causes are ignored by the elites who continue to perpetrate this multi-generational atrocity. It is not the racism that is popularly cited, but Leftist social engineering that is responsible for the continuing and precipitous dissolution of the black community.

Other demographics that neglect their children by bringing them up in single-parent households in which the mother is delivering offspring from multiple sperm donors [who then disappear] will have similar results in similar proportion.

It is therefore critical that intact families be encouraged -- and breaking them up for frivolous reasons be stigmatized. Indulging fleeting urges harms us all in the long-run. Government cannot replace fathers. Girls should be raised to understand how precious they are and boys should know this also -- not just for their sake, but for the sake of us all.

“We do not vet our daughters’ suitors at our peril.”

When I wanted to get married at 19, my Dad said, ‘You can marry him, but you’ll have to finish RAISING him.’

How true was THAT!?!?

Many, MANY years later, I am now engaged to a hybrid of Ted Nugent and Grizzly Adams. Life. Is. Good. :)

I told my four daughters to make sure they can support themselves so they won’t need a man. Then they can be much more picky on what man they get.

I’ve only come to blows with one boyfriend so far. But I’ve threatened a few.

Good luck on all that, walford! : )

Tell her to marry an ambitious, smart Christian man who is talented and single minded in preparing for what he knows he wants to do for work. Best chances in that combo.

Avoid humanist culture’s immediate gratification and self centered (animistic tendencies and equivalences) mess. The Humanist culture is going to only get darker and darker as it cleanses any and all Christian/western self control, love, morals and values. It’s not hormones. It’s self discipline and good heartedness, or good character (looking out for one another rather than selfishness) that makes a good marriage.

But alas, you can not control this just talk about it. Stay out of the hormone nonsense.

Hogwash. Women are attracted to mating with high-testosterone men, but building a family with beta types, in the best interest of their offspring.

Testosterone makes for strong men, but weaker men make for a reliable home environment.

Is this a bit of a conflict? Sure. And that’s why it has been found that more women step out on their reliable husbands than was realized historically.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.