Sexual Relationships
+1 y

Blame Sexist Roles on Biology, Not Him, or Her, Xe, or Xer

Blame Sexist Roles on Biology, Not Him, or Her, Xe, or Xer

So guess what everyone? Biology is sexist. The human Anatomy and physiology is the biggest, most sexist thing you've ever come across. For all of you SJW, PC crowd - you're all kinda' losing the battle here, because biology is kicking your asses. How? Well, women are for raising kids and men are for spreading seed.


Men produce copious amounts of sperm, didn't ya' know? Why do they need all that sperm? Well, because those crazy ladies cheat on their men! Before you all start tightening the nooses in your ropes ladies, let me explain!

Our bodies are still the same ones (for the most part) from the days before electricity, industrialization, and basic civility. And while the men were off hunting down those beasts to bring back to their ladies, the women were off humping some other guy! Now why in the world would they do something like that? Because women mate with the most attractive males available to them, especially during times of high fertility. But don't worry ladies, you aren't the only ones that get around - those highly attractive males are more likely to be spreading that seed around like an industrialized farm.

But that's why men have evolved the ability to produce prodigious amounts of sperm when away from their 'lady-friends' for 3 days or longer. That's right. After 3 days of being away from their significant other, the long-term 'mate' of a female will start doubling his normal dose of 'little guys'. And why would he do that? Well, he wants to make sure he's not raising some George Clooney cloney. Those extra sperm serve as armed guards to his most precious eggs. . . I guess technically they're HER most precious eggs, but you get the idea.

And look out ladies, men have obtained the ability to send out super spy-sperm into your vagina. Yes, it's true. Somehow, some way, your husband or significant other's body, specifically his balls, knows when another male's sperm is present, or has been present, inside of you, and he will immediately begin producing more sperm. Why? Because no man wants to help you raise a baby that isn't his. And this works the same when the male merely suspects his 'special lady' friend of double-dipping (or even triple/quadruple dipping. . . crazy ladies).

So it's true that all those 'hunky' men out there will have milkshakes that bring all the girls to the yard, it's also true that those men may have a hard time impregnating you if your significant other gets a chance to dive in to the lake of love soon after. Those ninja sperm can be quite effective.

So why are women so darned sneaky? Because they love the human species and want to see it get better. Women are designed to have sexual intercourse with attractive males that have good characteristics like being able to pull cars with his/her teeth, or being able to throw leather-wrapped air things to other hunky dudes that are pullin' in all the chicks as well. Have stamina? Strong muscles? Those guys are evolutionary Gods, but women aren't stupid - they know a d-bag when they see one.

They will use their beauty, their finesse, their sexuality, and their hold on men to secure a long-term mate that will see that newborn ball of cry-baby to its ripe adult stage (this would be the woman that says "I don't **** on a first date" or "I need to get to know you first - the guy sticks around for the poonanny and the lady must keep him there to secure protection for her offspring). Those men are also sought after, and a lot of women hope their 'hunkster' lake dippers will be the guy that sticks around, but eventually, after being turned, tagged, and burned by enough of those muscle d-nozzles, the ladies figure out how important stability is, so they will finally seek the guy they might not have looked at twice before.

So what if he is skinny fat? He's smart, right? So what if he can't knock another guy out with one flex of his bicep - he's going to stick around and raise that child, right? Yep, that's correct. So nice guys don't necessarily always finish last, but they tend to be the ones getting sloppy seconds.

But don't worry ladies - you go through all of this pain and suffering for the betterment of mankind. You put up with all of these crazy, unpredictable, good-looking guys that cheat all so that you can make sure your offspring are good-looking, muscular, full of stamina, and have lovely . . . err. . . organs.

I'm not the one that's being sexist here - biology is. . . A&P is. Our species is all kinds of sexist. The women are tasked with finding a decent mate, finding a mate that will stick around, and raising that kiddo while waiting for Mr. Man to get home with the deer strapped across his back. When you see that - get ready - 'cause Mr. Man is gonna' have you cut it up and cook it for him while he defends your love lake's honor with his over-abundant ninja sperm.

Good luck out there. . . our bodies are still living centuries ago, even though our brains have figured out electricity, industrialization, and comfort. Perhaps some day, another major evolution will happen and men will become a bit less sexualized and more docile and domesticated.

Until then, happy hunting!

1 2

Most Helpful Guy

  • Well being a apprentice of science I will say you have a caught a rare hair from a wig.
    A very hidden point, a very vital flaw in male and female attractions, designed by biology to maintain its fundamental law of survival of the fittest...

    It's like nature has gifted each gender a box on basis of which we judge and choose our mate.
    One rule In female box is = 'your male should not see another women as a potential mate.'
    Result : Check out other women in front of your girl of wife and she will be a cannon you can not dodge.
    That is the exact reason 'why women hate it if their man watches porn?'... They don't care if women is real or virtual! Just their man should not see her as an potential mate.

Most Helpful Girl

  • I have never read more bullshit. Quite funny though. I give you 1/5 because of spying sperm joke

    • What's funny is that every bit of what I've said is accepted fact in the scientific community - except for the spy-sperm. They don't actually report back, but, unlike 'nalaa' - you actually got that it was all for goofs. But seriously, read up on this stuff and you'll discover that everything I've stated in here is accurate - at least from the scientific perspective. There's always nuance and subtlety that is in play when women select their sperm donors, but for all intents and purposes, it's factual information. I'm glad you laughed, though. :)

    • what he said is actually true. its well studied, if you can't handle science then dont have an opinion.

    • I have an opinion, science can't take that away from me. And life is more that just science. It's not that black and white.

    • Show All

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What's Your Opinion? Sign Up Now!

What Girls & Guys Said

5 6

  • how do you know women were not hunting. oh you don't.

    as far as hep raising a baby. much more security in the help of a community than having a two person relationship with two people who for 'biological purposes' will be cheating. and going off to find ass. guys can spread seed without women. that kids going to be walking into a mammoths mouth while her parents are having prehistoric ons.

    pair relationships are not made for bringing up baby. they are made for perpetuating gender roles and for keeping people docile and passive and a political.

    biology can't be sexist. sexism means having preconceived notions judging and treating people a certain way based on their sex. biology does not (cognitively) conceive judge or treat. biology has no opinion. biology functions.

    • "pair relationships are not made for bringing up baby." - everything that we do is for reproductive purposes. Our genes evolve in order to further our 'success' as a part of the animal kingdom. And I think you missed the point of the 'running off sleeping with the guy' - that comes from the limbic system, our lizard brain, but the counter to that is the prefrontal cortex which gives us our cognition and provides us the ability to perform complex thinking. The 'story' you read has more to do with the 'animal' side of us and has little basis in reality, but it was told in such a way to explain why we do the things we do as man and woman. And my reference to 'sexist' is due to the fact that women want to do everything men do and claim they are equal. In that same regard, men do the same. But the truth of it all is that we have roles in our species, very clear roles, but those roles are being forcibly changed by our 'social' side and 'moral' side, which comes from our prefrontal cortex

    • to your first comment... yeah... we do... lol, pregnant women didn't go on hunting parties are you serious... wow... and of course some did hunt, when there were a lack of men to do the job or you had a woman more fit to hunt and who couldn't find a mate... sure... but in a completely warring tribe - the women would hunt when the men were gone... its statistics and generalizations based on historical data and what we know of anthropology and the differences in genders today that we base these assumptions on, recorded history and archaeology are more in tune with my point of view, science is unapologetic and independent of our personal feelings

  • "men have obtained the ability to send out super spy-sperm into your vagina" ok, how is that useful though? I mean how does the sperm report back to the mothership?

    • Snowball? Lol

    • That reference was more for 'effect' than anything. The increase in 'egg fertilizing' sperm and 'kamikaze' sperm really depend on each individual situation. Example: a rapist will deposit more 'egg-getting' sperm inside of his victim than, say, the victim's husband. The likelihood of a female becoming pregnant by the rapists sperm is actually much higher than that of her partner's sperm. It sounds weird, but it's based on the 'dominant sperm'. In fact, the female's vagina also plays a role in which sperm is 'accepted' and which is 'pushed out'. A wife's 'lover' - or a one-night of 'cheating - is more likely to impregnate her, because the 'lover' is typically the male who is higher up on the evolutionary chain than the guy that 'takes care of you and the babies'. The term 'alpha fuck' comes into play here. The one-night guy is an 'alpha fuck' (because he gets the ladies) while the guy that comes home to you is the 'beta fuck'. It takes a female longer to conceive a husband's baby.

    • ... last comment continued. . . So it's less of a "my sperm came back and reported other sperm in the vicinity" and more of a psychological thing. Your long-term partner, basically, 'tops you off' with his killer sperm, but produces very little of the fertilizing sperm. But that 'tryst' you had while your husband was away - that guy is actually producing way more 'egg-seeking' sperm than he is kamikaze sperm. It's pretty insane, but it also means that if you don't want to birth someone else's child, it's a great idea not to cheat, because the likelihood of you getting pregnant from the 'other guy' is much higher than from you getting pregnant from your significant other. :)

    • Show All

  • https://i.imgur.com/yY6GTGI.gif
    what the fuck did I just read

    • The window into your soul. Kinda' dirty in there, isn't it? :) haha

    • Not even close.

    • You can disagree with your own bodily functions all day long, but you can't hide from them.

    • Show All

  • Huh, really good take OP. A lot of men don't like talking about what women are programmed to like, but you sir aren't. And yea, PC society hate to think or acknowledge that we just aren't biologically the same or equal in the same ways.

  • Well, men wouldn't stick around and help take care of a pregnant woman and raise some other guy's kid - unless it was their friends and he died in war or something.
    So, spreading seed, yeah... but ideally from evolutionary standpoint humans were monogamous - when there were a lack of males in the society due to wars men would take on multiple wives.

    This to is also biology, history, archaeology, anthropology... you name it... I guess its sexist.

    • If we were monogamous, our balls would be tiny. If we were wholly promiscuous (or at least the women), our balls would be HUGE. The actions of women, quite literally, dictate the size of our balls. Monogamy and promiscuity also has been dictated by tribal needs. If the tribe was relatively safe, they practiced more of an egalitarian form of leadership and promiscuity ensued, but if the tribe was constantly in danger, it was more patriarchal and polygamy was typically the norm. It's kinda' crazy to think about how it works in that way, but it does make a lot of sense! Thanks for the comment, Utopian!

  • I actually agree with you at least as far as the biology goes. The truth of the matter is that egalitarianism is a lost cause from the start because the objective, biological fact is that men and women are NOT "equal" but are different. And no amount of political correctness, SJW stuff is going to change that. Nature always trumps nurture. Instead I think we need to acknowledge the very real differences between the sexes and from there focus on *fairness* opposed to "equality."

    I would add however that I am extremely disappointed with the modern scientific community. We grow up believing that scientists are these infallible pillars of knowledge who always seek the objective, verifiable truth no matter what. Yet what with the political correctness--particularly LGBT thing--more and more scientists seem to be "selling out" for the sake of protecting their careers and/or seeming cool and "progressive." In other words, science is becoming politicized. IIRC, that's the only reason why the APA removed homosexuality from its list of disorders, because of protest, not because of any objective discoveries.

    But overall, I agree that we can take heed. Science is objective; the truth is objective. And the truth is on our side. It is only a matter of time before all of this "progressive" garbage implodes on itself when Mother Nature finally trumps nurture like a deck of cards.

  • "Yep, that's correct. So nice guys don't necessarily always finish last, but they tend to be the ones getting sloppy seconds."

    Well they do technically finish last. They are the last ones to get the girl after she's already tried to get the hotter less reliable guys. They also typically have to work harder, while she might say "I don't **** on a first date" or "I need to get to know you first" to the long-term guy, she didn't say that to the "hunkster". He probably got sex by the third date or sooner. You might say he's the big winner because he gets to marry her but thats only true if its a successful marriage. If they're miserable, she cheats, or files for divorce and cleans out his bank account then the husband is the biggest loser in the end.

    Although I wouldn't say its "nice guys finish last" as I don't think niceness plays much of a role. Its not nice guy vs jerk, its strong vs weak or short term vs long term.
    Attractiveness, masculine presence, excitement are short term traits. If you have these traits you'll get lots of easy no strings attached sex regardless of whether or not your nice.

    If you're less attractive, and not as masculine but you're intelligent, financially stable, and reliable, these are long term traits. You won't get many offers for casual sex, you won't be the guys she's excited to sleep with or wants to try out her fantasies with but you're first in line when she wants someone to buy a house and raise kids with. Once again, I dont think niceness plays much of a role.

    Anyways I agree its not a not plan to screw over "nice guys" its just biology. There are winners and losers and the guy who is only desirable for long term is often the loser. In the past hed get less opportunities to pass down his genes and when ever he did there's a good chance his mate cheated and possibly got him to raise the short term guys kids. Now he's gets less sex in his youth and used for financial stability after the girl is ready for buy a house and raise kids. Also he gets divorce raped.

    • "I dont think niceness plays much of a role." - on this I will have to disagree. With the evolution of communication came the evolution of kindness being a positive characteristic that would attract a female partner. But that's also why men developed the ability to be genuine nice-guys at face-value, but end up being players in the long run. Again, it's a survival of the fittest. Eventually, women will likely develop an innate ability to detect bullshit - and in fact, I think we're witnessing that transition today. But until it goes full blown, women are going to end up getting with the 'hunk' in her 20s, popping out his kids, then running to the 'nice guy' to finish rearing the child. Either that, or this transgender movement and emasculating of men is another evolutionary change that pushes towards the complete change of 'masculine' = good. I don't think that's unlikely either, given that in our society, today, women don't need those 'masculine' guys as much anymore. continuing..

    • Because of our society, and how it's set up, women will choose differently. Since women choose their mates (other than the victims of rape), the human species will change regarding the changes in our livelihoods. Again, I believe we're witnessing this trend. Why do you think 'nerd' = 'cool' now? So we'll either see rape increase (rape by masculine men), or we're just going to see a total drop off of masculine men. Ultimately, that very well might doom the human race given that if our society fails, which isn't unlikely, there will be a lot fewer men that know how to hunt, track, farm, etc. than there were before. But that also means that the men that still carry those traits will be impregnating all the females while the 'other' guys will be rearing those children. It's kinda' crazy how that works. Fascinating, but crazy. :)

    • " But until it goes full blown, women are going to end up getting with the 'hunk' in her 20s, popping out his kids, then running to the 'nice guy' to finish rearing the child." Yeah, but I think due to the internet a lot of "nice guys" have caught on to this and won't be willing to play along with that plan. I think the transgender movement is over represented but I do agree traditional masculinity is labeled as "toxic" and shamed Even the "musculine" men today dont know how to live off the land so I think everyone would be pretty fucked if we lost the comforts of modern society. Personally Id just bite a bullet, I wouldn't even want to try and survive in a post apocalyptic world. Why try to survive in a world I wouldn't enjoy just to delay the inevitable. "But that also means that the men that still carry those traits will be impregnating all the females while the 'other' guys will be rearing those children." But why would any guy who is aware of the situation go along with that?

    • Show All

  • ninja sperm...

    • They seek and destroy the other sperm. :)

  • load of bullshit... but. i enjoyed reading it. you're actually a decent writer.

  • reason #292873 for enforced monogamy.

  • Damn reality! Why won't it do what we want!

Home >  Sexual Relationships  > Blame Sexist Roles on Biology, Not Him, or Her, Xe, or Xer