Why are violent or drug using men so fertile? it goes against nature

Looking at the "adoption programme" last night, and also when you see shows like the Jeremy Kyle show, you see men who use women as punchbags, take drugs for england, are raging alcoholics and often do not provide for their offspring.

On the other hand, it seems that the more stable, or hard working a man is, then the more infertile he tends to be. If he is level headed and polite, then his ability to produce offspring is greatly reduced.

Now does this not go against natural selection?

There is no other animal on planet earth that could go on like this.

Take any animal, it could be a bear, a stag, a lion, an ant.....anything...... now in the animal kingdom, the male has to be the fittest, the strongest and the healthiest and.............only when the male proves himself, does he get to pass on his genes to the next generation, and that ensures the survival of that animal over the centurys.

If an animal (any animal) was in a situation where the unhealthiest males, or the males that could not provide got the femals then the resulting offspring would be weaker.

And how would it stack up if the males (stags, bears, lions etc...) attacked the females and proved their manliness by attacking the females? it goes against every instinct of every animal for a male to attack a female in order to prove himself.

Can you imagine a male stag, bargeing into a female stag to get the right to mate? what would happen to the male stags who prefered to rut with other males.

So this brings me back to the origional paragraph -looking at the adpotion programme on BBC1 last night.

The kind, hardworking men who can provide a stable family life (look at 5 year old conor on the programme), have to jump through the hoops and appear not to be able to father children themselves..........yet........his natural mother was beaten up, and looks to live in an absolute hole pops kids out for fun, and with men who enjoy dishing out a bit of knuckle.

If there was a god, the surely he would make sure all the violent, drug taking, waste of space, drinking men were infertile ?

If I was god, I'd make sure they couldn't reproduce

This threads parable explains a couple of reasons why

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=325900

. . . . . If there was a god, the surely he would make sure all the violent, drug taking, waste of space, drinking men were infertile ?

 

If I was god, I'd make sure they couldn't reproduce

is this a serious question?

LOL you think animals wine and dine their mates? they just hop on, it is what we would call rape.

The adoption programme highlighted everything that is wrong.

Even when Coners natural mother went to court, with her non working partner who looks like he plays x-box all day - anyone in there right mind would have said "no love - keep your legs shut next time. Conor is living with a family where the man looks like he provides, the woman is stable and does not mingle with violent men, conor has two sisters and a dog named burt"

He lives in a middle class home, where there is a male presents who does not look like a smackhead.....you on the other hand, mix with male x-box playing, violent losers, who don't work in a dump.....

Next time, legs shut"

If I was the judge, thats what I'd have said.

(also - why do so many grown up men like to play computer games these days? - in the 80s it was only spotty teenagers)

LOL you think animals wine and dine their mates? they just hop on, it is what we would call rape.

Yes, but its only the most able men that get to mate.

The ones who have rutted with the other men and proved themselves to be the strongest.

The rest of the males get to look at the "winning stag/male" having sex - bit like a free porn show I guess. Still doesn't make up for th real thing

 

(also - why do so many grown up men like to play computer games these days? - in the 80s it was only spotty teenagers)

Probable because they don't want to sit on the settee with their partner watching endless soaps, Jeremy Kyle and crap reality shows.

You should also realise that as far as the animal kingdom is concerned its not normal for the males to help bring up the offspring as that's the females job.

But as you seem to be trolling a lot recently I don't suppose facts matter.

Yes, but its only the most able men that get to mate.

 

The ones who have rutted with the other men and proved themselves to be the strongest.

 

The rest of the males get to look at the "winning stag/male" having sex - bit like a free porn show I guess. Still doesn't make up for th real thing

Your threads always make me laugh.Thanks.

Looking at the "adoption programme" last night, and also when you see shows like the Jeremy Kyle show, you see men who use women as punchbags, take drugs for england, are raging alcoholics and often do not provide for their offspring.

 

On the other hand, it seems that the more stable, or hard working a man is, then the more infertile he tends to be. If he is level headed and polite, then his ability to produce offspring is greatly reduced.

One doesn't take responsibility for themselves or their actions, so has kids willy nilly while young and super fertile, the other considers the future and puts off having kids until they can afford it, while at the same time their fertility is reduced.

Now does this not go against natural selection?

Natural selection doesn't apply to humans in the same way. You could argue that one natural selection criteria is whether you're competant to use a condom or not.

This has got to be a joke thread! No body is this stupid, surely??!!

Looking at the "adoption programme" last night, and also when you see shows like the Jeremy Kyle show, you see men who use women as punchbags, take drugs for england, are raging alcoholics and often do not provide for their offspring.

 

On the other hand, it seems that the more stable, or hard working a man is, then the more infertile he tends to be. If he is level headed and polite, then his ability to produce offspring is greatly reduced.

 

Now does this not go against natural selection?

 

There is no other animal on planet earth that could go on like this.

 

Take any animal, it could be a bear, a stag, a lion, an ant.....anything...... now in the animal kingdom, the male has to be the fittest, the strongest and the healthiest and.............only when the male proves himself, does he get to pass on his genes to the next generation, and that ensures the survival of that animal over the centurys.

 

If an animal (any animal) was in a situation where the unhealthiest males, or the males that could not provide got the femals then the resulting offspring would be weaker.

 

And how would it stack up if the males (stags, bears, lions etc...) attacked the females and proved their manliness by attacking the females? it goes against every instinct of every animal for a male to attack a female in order to prove himself.

 

Can you imagine a male stag, bargeing into a female stag to get the right to mate? what would happen to the male stags who prefered to rut with other males.

 

So this brings me back to the origional paragraph -looking at the adpotion programme on BBC1 last night.

 

The kind, hardworking men who can provide a stable family life (look at 5 year old conor on the programme), have to jump through the hoops and appear not to be able to father children themselves..........yet........his natural mother was beaten up, and looks to live in an absolute hole pops kids out for fun, and with men who enjoy dishing out a bit of knuckle.

 

If there was a god, the surely he would make sure all the violent, drug taking, waste of space, drinking men were infertile ?

 

If I was god, I'd make sure they couldn't reproduce

What would you do with all the resulting empty dwellings in Gleadless Valley, Lowedges and The Manor?