Why do we have so many arguments? How can we improve the situation? C O N T E N T S Technology has significantly changed human life We can understand humans by looking at animals The Bill Cosby rape cases Why are women paid less than men?

Prehistoric life was physically difficult, but it was intellectually simple. As a result, people who were born with physical disorders suffered tremendously, but people with mental disorders did not necessarily suffer. Actually, as I mentioned in a previous file, some mental disorders could have been an advantage during prehistoric times. An example are the people who have an obsession with cleanliness. In our era, these people are considered neurotic because they waste an enormous amount of their life and resources on the unnecessary cleaning of their material items, themselves, and their house. They also waste a lot of their life arranging their material items in a neat and orderly manner.

In our era, these OCD people can annoy their spouse, and their obsession can interfere with their job and friendships. However, during prehistoric times, people were nomadic, so they had only a few material items, and nobody had a house. A prehistoric person with an obsession for cleanliness may have been admired for being neater and cleaner than the other people.

Another example are the men who become extremely wealthy. During prehistoric times, a man with a neurotic obsession for material items would have put a lot of time and effort into acquiring food, tools, and furs. He would have spent less time socializing with people around the campfire, less time with his wife and children, and less time swimming in the pond and enjoying life, but would anybody have regarded him as neurotic? I don't think so, because we don't regard men like that as neurotic today. Those type of men are admired.

I think that a prehistoric man who had an obsession for material wealth would have been regarded as hard-working, and if he was successful, he would have provided his family with lots of food and tools, and they would have appreciated his efforts and admired his talent. I think only future generations will have enough of an understanding of life to realize that the extremely wealthy people should be classified as having some type of OCD disorder.

Another example are the people that we describe as being bipolar. In the world today, those people are unpleasant and disruptive because their miserable attitude and mood swings can lower morale and disrupt teams of people who are trying to work together. They can also be irritating to their family members and neighbors. Furthermore, if they do not realize that their misery is coming from within their own mind, they may assume that they can end their suffering by becoming rich, famous, getting drunk, having more sex, or getting revenge on the people who irritate them. Their attempt to end their misery can result in more trouble to society, especially if they get involved with crime.

However, during prehistoric times, people with bipolar disorder would not have been nearly as irritating. The men hunted together, but they were much more independent compared to modern employees. The men in a hunting group would not necessarily have noticed that one of the men was suffering from mood swings, and that he was frequently depressed and miserable. Each of the men would be concentrating on looking for animals and predators, not closely interacting with one another to such an extent that they would notice one another's mental problems.

During the evening, when the men were home with their wives and children, the men with bipolar disorder did not necessarily disrupt the other people. In our era, these men often abuse alcohol or other drugs in an attempt to end their misery, but prehistoric people could not do that. They would have to search for relief in some other manner, such as concentrating on making tools or finding more wood for the campfire. Or a bipolar man might distract himself from his misery by singing, dancing, or telling stories, thereby entertaining the people during the evenings. The other people may not have noticed that there was something wrong with his mind. Nobody may have noticed that he could not relax and enjoy life.

Our technically advanced era is making it easy for us to realize that there are a lot of subtle differences between our minds. For some more examples:
 • Technology provides us with a variety of gambling activities, and this shows us that there are significant differences in our attraction to gambling, and our control over our gambling.
 • We have a wide variety of alcoholic drinks and drugs, and this shows us that there are significant differences between us in our desire for those chemicals, and our ability to control our consumption of those chemicals.
 • The enormous amounts of food that we are producing today shows us that there are significant differences in our ability to control our consumption of food.
 • Our schools show us that we have significant differences in our learning abilities and desires.
 • The jobs that we have to do today are showing us that there are significant differences in our ability to learn a skill, work in a team, and follow rules and regulations.
 • Our material wealth shows us that there are significant differences in our craving for wealth, and our desire to clean our items and arrange them in an attractive pattern.
 • Technology allows us to commit a tremendous variety of crimes, and this shows us that there is a significant difference in our desire to refrain from crime.
 • Technology allows us to acquire awards, trophies, and college diplomas, and this shows us that there is a significant difference in the arrogance of people and their craving for status.

Prehistoric men and women enjoyed one another

During prehistoric times, the men would bring food and furs home to their wife, but they didn't do much together, and they didn't have many discussions. There would have been very few arguments between prehistoric husbands and wives simply because they did not have much to argue about. There were no arguments over which television shows to watch, whether they should invite one of their friends for dinner, or what they should do on their holiday or weekend. There were no arguments about pornography, astrology, or what to buy the children for Christmas.

Personality characteristics that irritate us today, such as extreme arrogance, would not have bothered our prehistoric ancestors.

If a man was abnormally sloppy, or had abnormally crude manners, would his wife have cared? Everybody ate with their fingers, and all of the men had messy beards and hair. The people would have noticed that some people were more sloppy and crude than others, but those crude people would not have been nearly as irritating during prehistoric times as they are today. They didn't have houses, so none of the women complained about sloppy men making a mess in the bathroom, or leaving clothing or other items scattered around the house.

Furthermore, at night, their only source of light was from campfires or the moon, so they couldn't see each other clearly. Therefore, when they were eating, they would not have been as aware of how sloppy some of the people were. By comparison, when people today have dinner with electric lights, we can clearly see when people are dribbling food on themselves, making a mess on their plate, or gobbling food like an animal.

The relationships in prehistoric times were so simple that the men and women did not have to put any effort into finding a compatible spouse. The men and women could pick a spouse according to who they "liked" the most, and if there were not many choices, they could just pick whoever was available. It was possible for people in prehistoric times to arrange marriages for their children simply because most marriages would be successful.

If we selected a man and woman at random from the world today and sent them back in time 50,000 years, they would very likely make a happy couple. Almost every married couple today argues about issues that did not exist during prehistoric times, and so if we removed those issues, they would have nothing to argue about.

In our world today, husbands and wives must be able to discuss a lot of complex issues, and they must be able to compromise. This requires that we put more effort into analyzing our compatibility with a potential spouse. We cannot select a spouse with the carefree attitude of a prehistoric human.

The topic of conversation has changed significantly

Since humans are social creatures, we have a tendency to talk to one another. During prehistoric times, the primary conversation would be the events of each person's day. A husband would tell his wife about how some of the men went swimming in a beautiful pond that they discovered as they were hunting, or how they had to chase after a wild pig for an entire afternoon before they finally caught it. The women would tell their husbands that their son found a frog, and that their daughter has learned how to braid her hair. Both the men and the women would have enjoyed talking to one another and telling each other about the events of their day.

In our era, by comparison, the events of our day are much more complex. Most people today are involved with specialized jobs that most people have little understanding of, and so those people cannot talk about what they did during the day with anybody except the few people who have a similar job. Women who remain home with the children can continue to tell their husbands what their children did during the day, but the husbands and wives who have jobs may not be able to talk much about the events of their day.

Furthermore, there are a lot of complex issues that people today are likely to talk about, such as taxes, politics, religion, abortion, crime, Bill Cosby, the Holocaust, and the 9/11 attack. When people discuss these issues, they frequently get into arguments with one another, and often accuse one another of being stupid, ignorant, or biased.

Our prehistoric ancestors didn't have to worry about whether they could have a conversation with their spouse because all they talked about were simplistic events, but today people need to be concerned about this issue. If we don't pay attention to these issues, we could get married to a person who has incompatible opinions on religion, abortion, or politics, and that can result in arguments, or in one spouse becoming submissive to the other.

When everybody is ignorant, everybody is a genius

Prehistoric men were impressed by their wife's intelligence and creativity.

When prehistoric people had discussions about life, such as speculating on what the stars were, how the universe was created, or what happens to a person when he dies, nobody would have considered somebody else's opinion to be idiotic or ignorant. During prehistoric times, everybody's opinions were equally intelligent. This allowed husbands and wives to discuss these issues without either of them considering their spouse to be stupid or uneducated. Men would have enjoyed listening to women's opinions.

By comparison, when people today have discussions, it becomes obvious that some people are less intelligent, less educated, and/or less able to control their emotions. We also notice that men and women have slightly different interests in life. Women don't have much of an interest in anything other than children and relationships. Most women are not interested in discussing a probe that landed on a comet, for example.

Prehistoric men admired a woman's mind

In our era, most men eventually notice that there is a significant difference between a man and woman's mind. When we are in school, for example, most boys notice that the girls don't do very good in math, science, or engineering. Married men notice that their wives and daughters have less ability than a 10-year-old boy at putting air in a bicycle tire, fixing a leaky faucet, and replacing an electrical switch. Our modern era also gives us lots of complex issues to think about, such as religion, evolution, astrology, crime, abortion, and drugs. When men and women discuss these issues, men are usually shocked and disappointed with a woman's opinions, not impressed.

During prehistoric times, it would have been obvious that men are physically stronger than women, but would anybody have noticed that there are intellectual differences also? I don't think so. Actually, I think prehistoric men were impressed by the talents of women.

Since women have better finger coordination, they would have been able to make clothing articles, baskets, and jewelry that was slightly better and more decorative than what the men were capable of doing. Women tend to pronounce words more clearly, and that gives them an aura of intelligence. A woman's higher level of cleanliness and grooming would also have impressed the men. Women are also better at singing, further impressing men. Prehistoric men probably considered the women to be talented and intelligent, not feebleminded or helpless.

Every plant and animal evolves to fit its environment. Humans evolved to fit a simple, nomadic life, and the men and women evolved to fit one another. Therefore, prehistoric men and women should have enjoyed one another.

The men would have enjoyed coming home each day to bring their wife some food, and admire her talents, and the women would have enjoyed the gifts, admiration, and pampering. They would have had a pleasant relationship.

Men were designed to admire and pamper women, but our technically advanced era is making it obvious to us that women are somewhat feebleminded and helpless. This is creating emotional turmoil for men. Our emotions want us to get on our hands and knees and worship a woman, but our intellect is telling us that the woman is an idiot who does not deserve such treatment.

A man's emotions assume that a woman is an adorable, intelligent, talented, and well behaved princess. Just as a woman is disappointed when a man abandons her after having sex, a man is disappointed when a woman makes idiotic remarks or behaves in a stupid manner. Our emotions expect her to impress us.

Most women have nothing intelligent to say about human behavior, crime, politics, school, marriage, or Bill Cosby. Husbands and wives can no longer have intelligent conversations with each other.

Ideally, women will evolve to become more intelligent and to develop a greater interest in the world, but during our lifetimes, men have to talk to other men when they want an intelligent conversation, and women should talk to women. When husbands talk to wives today, it is not an "equal" conversation. It is more similar to parents talking to children.

Imagine women making remarks like this to men as men walk down the street.

This recent video shows a young woman walking around New York City by herself. As she passed by men, some of them would whistle at her, say 'Hello' to her, or make idiotic remarks. In this article, some women took photographs of themselves while holding paper cards that show some of the stupid or lewd remarks that men said to them as they walked down the street.

Although the women are deceptive to imply that those lewd men are typical of men, the fact is that men behave like this, not women. What is different between men and women that causes men to behave in this manner but not women?

If some women were treating men in the same crude manner that the badly behaved men treat women, most men would quickly become disgusted. I don't think many men would be tolerant of women who made lewd remarks to us, who brushed up against us as we passed by, or who groped us on crowded trains. So why do men behave in this manner? And why don't the better behaved men do anything to stop the badly behaved men? Men will give a trivial punishment to the men who grab women on public trains, but we do nothing about the men who make lewd remarks or brush up against women.

Imagine if dogs had enough intelligence to create videos. Imagine a female dog strapping a camera to her head and creating a video to show us that as she walks down the street, male dogs sniff her rear end. The female dogs would not be bothered by the majority of male dogs, but a minority of male dogs would be abnormally aggressive and crude, and the female dogs would likely whine about them. What would your reaction be to her complaints? Most humans would react with a remark similar to, "Well, what do you expect? You are a dog. That is how dogs find mates." I suspect that an alien from another planet would make a similar remark to the women who complain about lewd remarks, groping on public trains, and being bumped up against.

Men are willing to reprimand a man who gropes women on public trains because we can make a distinction between a man who does that and a man who does not, but how can we stop men from making lewd remarks? There is no clear dividing line between a lewd remark and other types of remarks. Since all men make remarks to women, rather than try to pass judgment on which man is making an inappropriate remark, most men prefer to ignore the issue.

If we want to stop that minority of male dogs from irritating the females, we cannot accomplish that goal simply by whining about their behavior. The most effective ways of improving the behavior of male dogs is to:
1) Evict the worst behaved dogs.
2) Restrict reproduction to the males who behave in the best manner.
3) Experiment with changes in the social environment to reduce the stimulation of certain emotions, and to increase the stimulation of certain other emotions, thereby encouraging the males to behave in a better manner.

The same concept applies to humans. We will not improve men's behavior by whining about the minority of men who have crude or idiotic behavior. The most effective ways to change the behavior of men is exactly the same as with dogs.

For an example of how changing our culture can help us, if we were to eliminate the sexual titillation in advertisements and television, we might be able to reduce the time that men spend fantasizing about sex.

Our custom of kissing under mistletoe makes our lives more awkward and embarrassing, not more pleasant.

For another example, consider the custom of kissing a person under mistletoe, or kissing them on New Year's eve. Although some people might enjoy those customs, I think that if we analyze the benefits and disadvantages of these customs, we will come to the conclusion that they have no benefit, but they create a lot of frustration, awkwardness, embarrassment, and anger. I think that if two societies are identical in all respects, except that one of them has kissing customs and the other does not, the people in the society that have them will suffer from slightly more frustration, awkwardness, embarrassment, and irritation.

The kissing customs may have gotten started in an innocent manner, but I suspect that the people who are most likely to promote and practice them are the men who are looking for an excuse to grab and kiss women. If dogs were intelligent enough to create social customs, some male dogs might promote the custom of sniffing rear ends under mistletoe.

Imagine if people with unusual sexual desires had created some customs for us. For example, imagine if Jerry Sandusky and his friends started a custom in which, on New Year's Eve, every adult man celebrates the new year by putting his finger into some young boy's butt.

Most people will not look critically at themselves or their culture, and as a result, they mindlessly promote whatever customs they learned during their childhood. We must push ourselves into looking critically at our culture and passing judgment on which of our customs is truly beneficial to us.

I don't think a society benefits by encouraging people to kiss each other. I think it encourages men to believe that it is acceptable to grab and kiss women, which in turn creates a lot of unpleasant and awkward situations. I think we should eliminate the kissing customs. Our social customs should encourage beneficial behavior and attitudes. They should make our lives more pleasant, not more awkward or frustrating.

Women are different from men, not better

It doesn't make sense to blame the problems in male-female relationships on men, or to accuse men of being "sexist". It makes more sense to say that men and women are "different". The problems in our relationships are not due to men. Our problems are due to the fact that both men and women are monkeys who evolved to fit a very simple, nomadic life. Furthermore, both men and women are selfish, and both men and women are abusive.

For example, as I write this article, another woman's story of a brutal rape is turning out to be false. The rape victim made a few mistakes in her story, and if she had done a better job of lying, people would still believe her. This should make you wonder, how many other rape stories are false, but nobody realized it? It is very unlikely that every false rape has been exposed as a fraud.

Why do women lie about rape? Why do women steal babies? Why have some women cut open pregnant women and taken their fetus? Why do women shoplift? Why do women participate in burglaries and murder? Why are so many women suffering from alcohol or drug problems? Why are so many women obese? The reason women have bad behavior is simply because they are just female versions of the same creature that a man is. They are not a superior species.

We need to understand our animal qualities, exert some control over ourselves, and experiment with new culture. For example, we need to develop an economic system that takes into account the fact that men and women have slightly different personalities and talents, and that women get pregnant and need to take care of babies.

It would also be beneficial for us to experiment with different ways of separating men and women when we have no need to be mixed together. For example, I suspect that teenage boys will do better in school when the girls are in a different classroom. For another example, we might reduce the problems between men and women in office buildings if we separate more of the male and female employees. Some nations have separate trains and beaches for women, although that extreme level of separation might be desirable only when a society refuses to evict or suppress the badly behaved men.

Some women complain that men are keeping everything as it is rather than making changes to our economy and social environment, but this resistance to change is not due to men being sexist. This is due to the fact that adult animals and humans resist changes in their life. This is especially true of the people who refer to themselves as "conservatives".

The majority of adults are frightened of making changes to their lives, and frightened of exploring the unknown. Most people want to gather with the others in a crowd and do what the others are doing, just like a herd of sheep. Furthermore, women are more frightened of exploration than men. Most of the resistance to experimenting with a new life is coming from women, not men. Women mimic one another much more than men mimic each other, and women resist experimenting with life much more than men do. Women put pressure on men to make money and give them gifts; they do not put pressure on men to analyze life and experiment with improvements to society.

Females animals want a long-term commitment

It is easier to understand the problems in male-female relationships if we first understand the simpler relationships between male and female animals. Although different animal species have subtle differences between them, there are certain characteristics that we find in both humans and certain animals.

Perhaps the most important aspect of females in regards to male-female relationships is that females do not want a male for casual sex, friendship, or socializing. To a male, sex is just a form of entertainment, but to a female, sex is a meaningful event. Sex is analogous to a wedding in which she is entering a long-term relationship with a male.

It should be obvious as to why females do not want casual sex. Raising babies requires a lot of effort, and the females who were the most successful at it were those who wanted a partner to help her gather food and protect the babies.

Female humans have the same emotions as female animals. Women do not want men for casual sex or friendship. They want a man who will make a long-term commitment to helping her take care of her children. The act of sex essentially flips the switch in her mind and causes her to enter a new mode of life in which she stops flirting with other men and starts a long-term relationship with a man.

Her emotions assume that by having sex, the man is going to remain with her for a long time. If the man abandons her, her emotions will be upset. She will feel as if she was cheated. She might complain that he took advantage of her, or that he raped her.

How can a dumb female animal make a wise decision about males?

A female animal wants a male who will form a long-term relationship with her, but how can a stupid, ignorant animal figure out if a male is going to make a long-term commitment? Nature solves this problem by making the females extremely resistant to sex, and giving them a characteristic that we call "playing hard to get". This characteristic forces the males to put a tremendous amount of effort into chasing after her.

The males who do not have much physical stamina will become tired before the more healthy males, and the males who do not have much of an interest in a female will give up before the other males. The end result is that the males that get the females are those with a lot of physical stamina, and a very strong craving for females.

This technique of playing hard to get does not guarantee that the male will remain with the female, but what else can a dumb animal do?

A female animal also needs to find a male who is capable of helping her to support the children, but how can a stupid female animal distinguish between a male that is capable of providing her with food and protection, and a male who cannot? What is different between the males who are best at finding food and protecting a family, and those who are the worst at it? What characteristic does she look for?

The most noticeable difference between the successful and unsuccessful males is that the more successful males will be in the best physical health because they will be able to provide themselves with plenty of high-quality food. Their feathers or fur will be attractive and thick, and they will have a lot of physical strength and stamina. They will also have more leisure time, allowing them to spend more time grooming themselves, chasing females, fighting with the other males, putting on elaborate displays with their feathers, or building nests.

Therefore, the females that have an attraction to the healthy, strong, nice-looking males will have more success in raising babies than the females who select a sickly, weak, and ugly male.

Females are not titillated by males who have "potential"; they are titillated by achievements. They are attracted to males who can prove that they are in good health, have exceptional physical strength and stamina, and have so much talent that they have lots of leisure time for grooming and other activities.

Women behave like female animals

As with animals, women do not want men for casual sex, or to be their friend. A woman wants a man who is dedicated to her, and who will make a long-term commitment to her. A woman is impressed by a man who pursues her, not by a man who gives up quickly. She wants a man to prove that he has a tremendous attraction to her, not a casual interest. For example, a woman is titillated when a man gets on his hands and knees and begs her for marriage; she is not impressed by a man who calmly discusses the issue of marriage as if they are friends.

A woman is impressed by a man who pampers her with gifts, food, and entertainment, not by a man who wants her to share the expenses. A woman is titillated by a man who worships her, not by a man who treats her as her equal.

Women are not impressed by potential; they want to see achievements. They are not impressed by a man who claims that he is capable of getting a job, or who promises that when he gets married, he will be willing to spend a lot of his time and money taking care of the family. She wants proof before she is married that he is capable of making a living, and that he is willing to sacrifice a lot of his time and money for the family.

A woman essentially wants a slave who will devote his life to providing her and her children with food, material items, and protection. The manner in which women force men to prove their abilities and dedication is by expecting the men to give them expensive gifts, and over a long period of time. If a man is not capable of giving lots of gifts to a woman, then how could he provide a lot of support to a family? Or, if he is capable of providing her with gifts but is unwilling to give her many, then why should she expect him to be willing to provide long term support to a family? Women want men to prove that they are both willing and able to sacrifice their own desires in order to take care of a family.

I suppose some people will respond to my remarks with examples of women who don't fit my description, such as women who enjoy casual sex, or women who get married to unemployed men who have no potential to take care of themselves, or women who prefer to spend their life with a dog rather than a man.

Since we are not controlling reproduction, people are becoming increasingly defective, and so every year it becomes easier to find people whose behavior is more bizarre than it was in the previous year. Also, our social environment is unpleasant and unfriendly, and that causes a lot of loneliness and frustration, which in turn causes a lot of people to behave in odd manners. We cannot use the unusual people as examples of what the human race is.

If a woman is still single during her 30s, or if she is so undesirable that no man showed an interest in her when she was young, then her fear of never getting married can overpower her other emotions, thereby causing her to become significantly easier for men to marry, and she may be willing to have casual sex, but that doesn't change the fact that her emotions want her to play hard to get and be pursued by men who give her gifts.

Men have no choice but to pursue women

A woman may complain about an aggressive man who will not stop pursuing her and giving her gifts, but, unfortunately, that is the type of personality that women are titillated by. Women are not attracted to "polite" men who stop the pursuit when she shows no interest. Women are titillated by men who don't give up easily. I mentioned an example years ago in which Julianne Hough, who initially had no interest in Ryan Seacrest, eventually found herself in love with him because of his endless pursuit of her, and his endless giving of expensive gifts.

Men and women are opposites in regards to this issue. Specifically, men do not want women to aggressively pursue them, and men are not impressed by women who get on their hands and knees and beg them for marriage. When a woman shows an interest in a man, and the man has no interest in her, he will become annoyed if she does not give up and leave him alone. Men do not play hard to get, and are not impressed by women who continuously pursue them. Men are not impressed by women who give them gifts, either. If a woman were to treat a man in the manner that Ryan Seacrest treated Julianne Hough, the man would be disgusted that she does not leave him alone.

Men fantasize about pampering a beautiful, well behaved, talented, intelligent woman.

Perhaps the most misunderstood characteristic of men is that - contrary to what most men and women believe - men do not want a woman who will be his slave. Rather, our emotions want a woman that we can pamper. We want to provide her with food, a home, gifts, and entertainment. We want to devote our life to taking care of her and giving her whatever she pleases. We want to worship her. We want to admire her talents, behavior, beauty, and intelligence.

The feminists frequently find exceptions, such as a man who is abusive to his wife rather than her slave, but those men are not "normal". The "typical" human man spends his life working for his wife and children, not for himself. He struggles to bring money home to his family, and he puts his family's needs ahead of his own desires. Men have a tendency to give things to their wife, and let the wives make the decisions of how to take care of the house and children. Men do not want to dominate their wife and tell her what to do with the children or the house.

Since nature is no longer exerting much control over human reproduction, the world is slowly filling up with retarded, psychotic, and defective humans. Every year it becomes easier for the feminists to find men with abnormal behavior. There are already thousands of men in the world who regularly beat or rape their wives, and for no apparent reason. There are also men who rape dogs and young boys. There are thousands of men who vandalize property, start forest fires, and torture animals. There are also thousands of angry, envious men who sabotage and hurt other people who have something that they wish they had. However, we are foolish to judge the human race according to the behavior of those odd men. They are not an example of male behavior; rather, they are more evidence that we must start controlling reproduction.

Women expect men to pamper them

If you watched either of the documentaries about the falcons or eagles that I mentioned in a previous file (this documentary about falcons, or this about eagles), then you might have noticed that the male bird constantly brings food for the female, but the female never does anything for the male. The female is in the role of a receiver of gifts, and the male is in the role of a giver of gifts. The male bird does this willingly simply because the males that were the most successful in raising children were those that had a very strong craving to pamper a female, and no desire to get anything in return.

The baby falcons and eagles constantly receive gifts from their mother, but they do nothing in return for her. Once again it should be obvious that the females do this willingly simply because the females that were the most successful in raising children were those that had a strong craving to pamper their children, and no desire to get anything in return.

Humans have the exact same attitudes. Children expect gifts and pampering from their parents, but they give nothing in return. Women have such a strong craving to care for children that they enjoy pampering them.

When women are dating men, the situation reverses itself; the women become the receiver of gifts. They expect the men to entertain them and provide them with food and gifts, but they give nothing in return. When a woman gets married, she has the intelligence to realize that she needs to give something, but she continues to expect her husband to provide her with gifts.

These attitudes made sense for our prehistoric ancestors, but it can cause trouble today. For example, since children assume that adults will pamper and care for them, a Hollywood director can offer a child a role in a Hollywood movie, and the child will trust him. The child will follow him to his house, or to an empty office in the Hollywood studios, where he will be drugged and raped.

Since adult women assume that men will provide them with free gifts and services, the wealthy and famous men in the entertainment business can offer to help a woman with her modeling career, acting career, or singing career. She will trust that man to provide this service for free, and she will be shocked when she discovers that he wants sex in return for doing her a favor.

During prehistoric times, it was acceptable for women to expect men to provide them with free food and other gifts, but this behavior is no longer acceptable. An example of this problem are some of the women who are complaining that Bill Cosby pushed them into sex or raped them. I have the impression that many of those women believed that Cosby was going to help them with their career, and for free. They were shocked to discover that Cosby was expecting something in return.

In this modern world, it is unacceptable for men to take advantage of women and children, but it is also unacceptable for women to expect men they do not know very well to do things for them for free. Many women complain that they want men to treat them as equals, but we are not equals when women expect men to provide them with free dinners, gifts, and career services.

Humans were designed to live among people

Humans evolved to live in close contact with other people. Prehistoric women spent almost their entire lives within speaking distance of other women and children. A woman would rarely wander beyond visual distance of other people.

Men also spent their lives in close contact with other people, but they were willing to wander beyond visual distance of other people in order to search for food and tools. During the day, the men would wander away from the women and children, but during the evenings the men would get together with the women and children. The people rarely spent their evenings isolated from other people.

If the weather was unpleasant, the people might spend the evenings struggling to deal with the rain and wind, but when the weather was pleasant, the people might gather around a campfire to tell stories about what happened during the day, and some of the people might sing a song.

Sometimes a man would spend an evening with other men, or by quietly making a tool by himself, but his wife would not complain that he was ignoring her. He was within speaking distance of his wife, and his wife was surrounded by other women and children. None of the women or children would feel as if they were abandoned by their husbands or fathers. Even though the men might be physically separated from the women and talking among themselves, or quietly working on tools by themselves, they were in such close proximity to their wives and children that nobody felt alone or abandoned.

The children were always surrounded by adults. They were never isolated from other people, not even when they were sleeping. They would go to sleep in close contact with other children, and while adults were talking or working on tools.

As I mentioned in a previous file, our craving for large houses and large plots of land has brought some significant changes to our social lives. We are inadvertently causing ourselves to live in isolation. The wealthy families put their children in their own bedrooms, and the large homes and large plots of land separate friends from one another.

When we design a zoo exhibit for monkeys, we do not provide each monkey with his own home on his own large plot of land, and we don't provide separate bedrooms for each of the baby monkeys to sleep in. We design the zoo exhibit so that the monkeys can live in close contact with one another.

One of the reasons I advocate the City of Castles is because it puts people in close contact with one another, and it allows people to freely move around the city so that they can be near their friends. I think this will create a much more pleasant environment for us because we have a natural desire to be with other people during both the day and evening. Men are tolerant of isolation while they are working, but women and children do not like isolation, and everybody enjoys getting together with other people during the evening.

In the wealthy nations, most families spend their evenings in their house. I think this is creating loneliness and frustration, especially for the women and children. I think the primary reason that people are spending so much time with their television is because they are lonely, and they want to see and hear people. Some women turn on a television simply to put some human voices into their environment. They do not even watch the television. Rather, they just want to hear some human voices so that they don't feel alone and isolated.

Some women expect their husbands to fill their need for female friends and children, but this puts a terrible burden on the husbands. Men and women do not have much in common, and so a man is not going to be a good substitute for female friends. Women need to have female friends; they cannot expect their husband to be their only friend in life.

During prehistoric times, the people would often gather around a campfire, and everybody was welcome to join the group. Nobody had to pay a fee to sit around the fire, and nobody had to quickly eat their food and then leave.

By comparison, our cities are designed for business activity, not human life, and as a result, they are not a place for us to relax and socialize. Everything in our city is a business, and so everywhere we go we must spend money, and we are treated as customers, not as friends. When we go to a restaurant, we must quickly eat so that another customer can have the table. If we are thirsty, we cannot just drink some water; rather, we must buy something to drink.

The reason I advocate the City of Castles is because the city becomes analogous to a prehistoric campsite. Everybody would be welcome to spend their leisure time in the city, and there would be no obligation to spend money because every foot path, park, recreational facility, museum, swimming pool, restaurant, and social club belongs to society, not to private businesses or individuals.

By designing the city so that the homes and businesses are clustered in large buildings that are surrounded by parks, everybody can easily walk, ride a bicycle, or take an underground train to the social clubs, museums, theaters, music concerts, recreational areas, and restaurants. I think this would significantly reduce the number of people who want to sit at home in the evenings by themselves or with their spouse.

However, this type of city provides married couples with a lot of decisions to make, such as how to spend the evenings and how to spend the weekends. In our cities today, there are not a lot of activities for people to choose from, but when the government is supporting and encouraging activities, there will be a lot of variety. This requires that we can do a better job of finding somebody who we are compatible with. We need to have compatible sleeping habits, for example, and we should enjoy some activities together.

Unfortunately, men and women were not designed to discuss their compatibility. Men have no desire to talk honestly about themselves to women; rather, we have a craving to impress and entertain women. Likewise, women do not want men to ask them about their sleeping habits, leisure activities, eating habits, or what they do on a weekend. Women want to be passive with men, and they want the men to titillate and impress them. Women want men to get on their hands and knees and pamper and worship them. In order for us to form better relationships, both men and women must push themselves into behaving more like an intelligent human and less like a stupid monkey.

If a woman likes a man, she wants him to pursue her

If a woman truly does not care for a particular man, she will be irritated if he pursues her aggressively, but if she has any interest in him, she wants him to aggressively pursue her. This creates a dilemma for the men. The women complain about being pursued, but that is what they want the men to do. How is a man supposed to know when a woman is truly rejecting him, and when she is merely playing hard to get? A man has no choice but to pursue women even if they show no interest in him. This creates an awkward and uncomfortable situation for both men and women.

In prehistoric tribes, there would have been only a few single adults, and everybody knew one another intimately. The women in those tribes would have been pursued by only a couple of men, and only occasionally. The women would have enjoyed the occasional flirting, not been annoyed by it. When neighboring tribes got together, the men and women from the different tribes would sometimes flirt with one another, but those encounters would have been fun for both the men and women.

Today, however, many of us are living in close contact with thousands of other people. A woman today may have to tolerate hundreds of men making remarks to her as she walks down the street, rides a train, or works at her job. Prehistoric women never had to deal with so many men.

To make our situation worse, people today do not know one another very well. We grow up in large houses that are isolated from one another, and we allow everybody to have tremendous secrecy, and we allow people to deceive one another. People can hide and lie about their history, age, police records, cosmetic surgery, and medical records. Furthermore, there are so many people who cannot handle homosexuality and other sexual problems that some homosexuals and transsexuals are pretending to be normal heterosexuals.

During prehistoric times, the men and women would have enjoyed flirting with each other, and the people certainly looked forward to flirtatious encounters with neighboring tribes. In our era, this crude method of finding a mate is awkward, uncomfortable, and inefficient. Many women, especially those who are unusually attractive, do not feel comfortable walking around the streets alone. We are tormenting ourselves and one another by continuing to find a spouse in this crude manner.

This article describes an electronic device that women can put into their shoes when they are on a date with men. By clicking their heels together, the device can provide them with an excuse to get out of the date, such as by making a phone call to them, or sending a text message to one of their friends. Ideally, no society would have to waste its technical talent or resources on these type of devices. Ideally, we would experiment with better methods for men and women to find a spouse.

What percentage of women are truly abused?

It is common today for men and women to get into arguments, and they sometimes hit or slap one another, but how many women are truly abused by their husbands? Half of the population is women, and half of our relatives are women, so all of us know a lot of women. How many of your female relatives are being abused? Half of the people in your neighborhood are women; how many of those women are abused? How many of the husbands that you personally know are not struggling to support their wife and family? Be serious with this issue. Do you actually know men who are abusing their wives or children?

The feminists are distorting reality by focusing on a small minority of psychotic men. There are not many women in Lorena Bobbitt's situation. The truth is that most women are not abused. Rather, most women are pampered and cared for by their husbands.

To complicate this issue, men have different emotional qualities, different abilities and desires to think, and different educational levels. The end result is that even though all men are trying to protect and pamper their wife and children, what some men consider to be "pampering" is what another person will condemn as "idiotic" or "abusive".

The most obvious examples are the religious fanatics. They believe that they are protecting and pampering their family by forcing a certain religion on them. For example, in May 2013, thousands of Jews spit and threw rocks at 400 women who were praying at the Western Wall.

Those Jews did not attack the women in order to be abusive, or because they were sexist. Rather, they truly believed that they were pampering and protecting the women by trying to pressure them into following the correct rules of life.

Men do not force burqas and other clothing styles on women because we are sexist. Rather, men assume they are taking care of the women.

Men also set clothing standards for men, women, and children, but not to be abusive. Rather, the men believe they are pampering and protecting the women and children. For example, Islamic fanatics believe that they are protecting their women by forcing them to wear burqas when they are in public. American men believe they are protecting their women by forcing them to cover their breasts when they nurse their babies, and by prohibiting women from showing their nipples or vaginas. In Israel, some fanatical Jews were spitting on and harassing an eight-year-old girl because they considered her clothing to be too provocative.

Prior to the 1970s, many men were discouraging their wives from smoking cigarettes. The feminists interpreted this as more evidence that men are sexist and abusive, but the men were doing it because they thought they were protecting and pampering their wives.

It is idiotic for women to accuse men of being sexist because most men are actually trying their best to pamper and care for their wives and daughters. If a woman doesn't like something that a man is doing for her, she has to provide the man with an intelligent analysis of the situation. For example, if she does not like the clothing rules that her husband is imposing on her, she must provide him with an intelligent analysis of how his recommendations are wasting money, or that they are uncomfortable for the women, or that the paranoia of nudity is causing children to grow up as sexually dysfunctional adults. By providing an intelligent analysis of the situation, she may change his mind, but whining about abuse will do nothing because he does not believe he is abusing her.

These concepts apply to children, also. A "normal" mother is dedicated to protecting and pampering her children, but a child will not always interpret his mother's actions as "pampering". A child will often imagine that he is abused, neglected, unappreciated, or tortured.

If a child whines about his mother's abuse, she will ignore him because she considers herself to be sacrificing her life for her children. If a child wants his mother to treat him differently, he must provide her with an intelligent analysis of the situation and show her that it would be better for her to change some of her attitudes. Unfortunately, children do not have the intellectual ability to provide intelligent analyses.

Should a husband be able to prohibit his wife from smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, or watching certain types of television shows? Should a mother be allowed to deny her child certain activities, foods, or toys? Should husbands be able to tell their wives which parts of their body to cover up in public?

Our primitive ancestors never had to deal with these issues, but today we should push ourselves into discussing these issues. Furthermore, before a man and woman decide to get married, they should have spent some time discussing these issues and ensuring that they are compatible with one another. Men and women should not get married and then discover that they have different ideas on how to live and raise children.

Unfortunately, single men and women are not going to discuss these issues when they go on dates. Women want to be passive monkeys who are titillated with expensive gifts, food, and entertainment. They don't want men asking them questions about what they think or how they live, and they have no interest in asking a man how he lives or what he wants from life. Women do not want to be interviewed or analyzed by men, and they have no desire to analyze any of the men. Instead, they want to be passive monkeys who are aggressively pursued and titillated with gifts.

The end result is that single men and women learn almost nothing about one another when they go on dates. Instead, they deceive one another with false images of themselves, makeup, cosmetic surgery, and lies about their past.

In order for single men and women to discuss these issues seriously, we need to develop courtship activities that push us into discussing them. Without any pressure to behave in an intelligent manner, we will follow our emotions and behave like monkeys. We need somebody to put pressure on us to control our emotional cravings, stop trying to impress one another, be more honest about ourselves, and seriously discuss the issues that affect a married couple.

Furthermore, these issues are not private or personal issues that men and women should discuss secretly between themselves. These are issues that affect everybody, and so we would all benefit if our leaders were discussing these issues in public. This will allow everybody to get involved and get ideas from one another. This will help everybody figure out what they want from life, and that will enable people at courtship activities to have productive discussions about these issues with potential spouses.

Teenagers would also benefit if schools pushed them into discussing these issues. In addition to getting the teenagers accustomed to discussing these issues, it would cause them to start thinking about them before they are married.

Men want to take care of women

Although prehistoric men considered women to be as intelligent as men, they did not regard women as being physically equal to men. They realized that women and children were weak, and that they needed men to handle the physically difficult chores and to chase away predators. A man's natural attitude is to take care of a woman and protect her from harm.

I think women will have a better understanding of men when they consider how they regard children. From the point of view of a woman, a child is a helpless creature who needs support and protection. Women do not consider children to be their equal. If children were to complain that their mother regards them as an inferior creature, and if they were to demand equality and respect, women would reprimand them with a remark similar to,

"Yes, I consider you to be dumb and ignorant, but I don't disrespect you. I treat you differently in order to help you. You would not want me to treat you as my equal because that would require you to share in the housework, the making of meals, and other chores, just as I would treat a female roommate. You are being pampered, not abused, and I am making a lot of sacrifices in my personal life for you."

Although women regard children as dumb and helpless, they have a very strong attraction to children. They do not "look down on" children. Rather, they love the way children look, behave, smell, sound, and feel.

Women are not irritated by the ignorance or stupidity of children. Rather, they enjoy making meals for them, tying their shoes, combing their hair, and teaching them how to pronounce words.

The attitude that women have towards children seems very similar to the attitude men have towards women, and this similarity may not be a coincidence. The emotion that causes women to care for their children may be the same emotion that causes men to care for their wives. Of course, the issue is complicated by the fact that men also have a sexual attraction to women, but I think women will have a better understanding of a man's emotional attraction to women when they consider their attraction to children.

It is true that men regard women as helpless, but we do not "look down on" women. Rather, we love the way women look, behave, smell, sound, and feel. Their helplessness does not bother us; rather, it is an opportunity for us to be a woman's hero and do things for her.

Queen Elizabeth never does or says anything worthy of a leadership position, but millions of British men do not care. They are titillated at the thought of being able to get on their hands and knees and pamper her. If she were to show signs of amazing stupidity or ignorance, such as having trouble figuring out how to open the door to her limousine, British men would be excited at the opportunity to help her open it. They would not be disgusted that they are pampering a stupid woman who never does anything for them in return. Instead of news reports that have such headlines as "Our Queen is so stupid that she cannot open a car door", the journalists would write articles with such remarks as, "A photo that will melt your heart! The Queen could not figure out how to open her limousine door or put on her seatbelt, and dozens of wonderful men rushed over to help her. Chivalry is alive and well here in Britain!"

Men today realize that women are intellectually inferior

Men want to pamper women, but today many men realize that women are less intelligent, and this is having an effect on our attitudes and our treatment of women. I agree with the feminists that men and women in this modern world need to be treated more equally, but women today are not equal to men, and we cannot make them equal simply by saying they are. The only way we are going to achieve equality is to restrict reproduction to the women who are more intelligent.

During the past few thousand years, and especially during the past century, an enormous number of men have impressed the world with their exploration of it, their development of cities and material items, their engineering achievements, and their scientific analyses. Prehistoric women impressed the men with their talent, but they are not impressing us today. Rather, they are disappointing us with their idiotic remarks about feminism, religion, astrology, and other issues.

Women cannot use the excuse that they are too busy taking care of babies to do something intelligent. They have plenty of time during their lives to do something intelligent. While they are nursing babies, for example, they have the time to think intelligent thoughts and discuss intelligent issues, but instead they think idiotic thoughts and have idiotic discussions.

Men have a natural tendency to admire and worship women, not to abuse or look down on women. It hurts us to realize that a woman that we are attracted to is feebleminded. Our emotions expect a woman to be an intelligent, well behaved, and talented princess. It is both a shock and a disappointment to hear their idiotic remarks.

If women were to show us that they are as intelligent as men, we would be impressed, and we would admire their intelligence. We would not try to suppress their intelligence. The proof for my remark is that men are already recognizing whatever talents a woman has. There are a few female scientists, for example, and men can recognize their talent, and there are women with unusually good memories, music abilities, singing abilities, or math abilities, and men recognized those abilities, also. We have no desire to suppress a woman's talent. Rather, we want them to have talent. We want them to impress us.

Men will recognize and admire a woman's talent, if she has one. Unfortunately, most women do not impress us with their intellectual abilities. Most women disappoint us with their idiotic opinions and their helplessness with material items.

We tend to be oblivious to whatever is natural to us

A "normal" man has a strong emotional craving to get on his hands and knees and pamper his wife. He wants to be a slave who devotes his life to taking care of her and her children.

Since men struggle with one another to get to the top of the social hierarchy, we are well aware that men want to be the boss, so it does not occur to us that a man also wants to be the slave of a woman. A man may appear to be the boss of his family, but in reality he is a slave who serves his wife. A man's position in his family is similar to that between a mother and her child, not between a manager of a business and his employees.

At a business, the manager truly is the boss, and he makes decisions for the employees. He does not try to serve his employees, and he does not worship the employees. He does not give the employees what they want; he gives the employees what they need.

A mother may consider herself to be the boss of her children, but she is actually a slave to the children. She is sacrificing her own desires in order to pamper and care for her children, but how many women realize it? Women enjoy this relationship, so from their point of view, they are doing what they want to do. Not many women seem to regard themselves as a "slave".

We assume that a person who is a slave is having a miserable life, but if the slave enjoys serving his master, then he will enjoy his life.

The same concept applies to men. A man may consider himself to be the boss of the family, but in reality, he is sacrificing his own desires and devoting his life to taking care of his wife and children. He is their slave. However, this is a natural craving for men, and so they don't regard themselves as a slave to their family. The men regard themselves as doing what they want to do.

A few times I have heard a man make a remark that is something to the effect of, "What was I thinking?" These remarks come about after a man has been on a date with a woman and he said or did something extreme, such as buying her some expensive gift, or telling her that he wants to be her faithful servant. The next day, when he is in a less emotional state, he wonders how he could have done something so extreme. The reason men will do these extreme things is because we have a powerful craving to get on our hands and knees and pamper a woman.

Men want to be a leader, but we also have cravings to be the slave of our wife.

Men don't normally notice that they want to be slaves to their wives, and women don't normally notice that they want to be slaves to their children, and women don't notice that their husbands are pampering them, and children don't notice that their mothers are pampering them. The reason we are oblivious to these master-slave relationships is because this type of relationship is natural to us.

It is not easy to notice something that is natural. For example, how often do you notice that your heart is beating or that you are swallowing saliva and mucus every few seconds? We don't normally notice something that is natural and comfortable. We normally only notice the things that irritate us, or are abnormal. For example, we don't notice our eyes are blinking every few second until a piece of dust gets into our eye and irritates it. Then we suddenly become aware that we are blinking on a regular basis. We don't notice that we are swallowing every few seconds until we have an infection in our throat that causes swallowing to become painful.

Children don't normally notice the nice things that their mother does for them. They are more likely to notice the irritating things that she does, such as denying them toys or candy. Because children tend to be oblivious to the nice things that their mother does but aware of every irritating thing, they are likely to come to the conclusion that they are regularly abused. They don't analyze the situation very well and realize that their mother is putting a lot of effort into pampering them, and that she never abuses them.

Women are the same as children. They are usually oblivious to the effort that their husband is putting into providing them with food, clothing, a home, and entertainment. However, they are likely to notice everything their husband does that irritates them. This lopsided observation of life can lead them to the conclusion that they are being abused and unappreciated.

Men are the same as the women and children. Men are also oblivious to most of the wonderful things around them, but they notice everything that irritates them.

We can also see this problem with people in leadership positions. They are often oblivious to the wonderful things that people are doing, but they are very likely to notice everything that irritates them.

Why are we so unappreciative?

Why do people focus so much on the irritating aspects of life rather than be grateful for the pleasant aspects? The reason is because this is what makes the most sense for a stupid animal. It would be idiotic for an animal to spend its time appreciating life. Imagine a deer that wanted to spend some time each day to enjoy smelling the flowers, watching the clouds blow around, and watch water trickle down a creek. Imagine a bison that wanted to get together with friends and enjoy the scenery around them. Imagine a wolf that wanted to sit under a tree for a while and appreciate how beautiful the forest was.

Animals don't have the intelligence to appreciate life, but if they had enough intelligence to do so, they would be wasting their time on a nonproductive activity. It would be foolish for them to do so. They would suffer in the competitive battle for life.

Natural selection never gave animals the ability to be grateful for anything, or appreciate life, or contemplate life. They were designed only to respond to problems. They merely exist from one day to the next, and without any idea of where they have been or where they are going. They merely respond to events.

Humans are a bit more advanced than animals, so we have a slight ability to appreciate life. We occasionally notice the beauty of the world around us, and we sometimes stop what we are doing to smell a flower, appreciate a sunset, watch a bird hatch from its egg, or enjoy a rainbow. However, we are not exactly the same in our ability to appreciate the world. Some people are better able to appreciate life than others.

What is "civilized" behavior?

There is a mysterious difference between animals and humans that some people describe as "civilized". Although we don't understand much about this issue, it is easy for us to see that there is a significant difference between humans and animals. For example, consider the difference in the way we eat food. Animals do not care how food is presented to them. A dog does not care if we arrange his meal in a beautiful manner, or if we dump some meat on the dirt. Furthermore, animals don't enjoy the food, and they don't get together with their friends to make meals into a social activity. Instead, they quickly gobble the food.

By comparison, humans are concerned with how the food looks, and how it is arranged on a plate. We also eat at a slower pace so that we can taste the food and enjoy it, and we get together with other people so that meals can become a social activity. Animals eat only to survive, but humans eat to enjoy life.

Animals also show no concern for their "home". They don't care if they are living in a filthy, ugly, garbage dump, or a beautiful garden. Animals will trample on plants, even if they are beautiful flowers.

By comparison, humans have a concern for what their home looks like, and we want the plants around the house to be attractive. We avoid stepping on plants. To an animal, a home is just a temporary place to sleep, but to a human, it is something to enjoy.

To an animal, trees are just shelter from the rain and snow, but to humans, they are beautiful works of nature to enjoy. Why can we enjoy trees, but not animals? And why do some humans enjoy and appreciate the world more than others?

Animals merely exist from one day to the next. As animals evolved into humans, our ancestors began doing more than merely existing. They began noticing the world and enjoying it. The trees became more than shelters from sun and rain; they became beautiful entities. Food became more than something to eliminate hunger; it became something to enjoy, and with other people. A creek became more than a material to quench thirst; it became something to swim in and watch as it flows down rocks.

Some people describe this difference between animals and humans by saying that humans are "civilized", but what exactly is different between animal and human minds? Furthermore, if we compare humans to one another, we will discover that we differ slightly in our civilized characteristics. Some people have a strong interest in making attractive meals and enjoying the food, whereas others show little concern for what the food looks like, and they have a tendency to gobble their food. Some people show a greater interest in making their city attractive, whereas others show almost no concern for what their city looks like. Some people show a strong interest in doing things with other people and forming a society, whereas other people prefer to focus on pleasing themselves and ignoring other people.

If we could turn a knob on a monkey's brain to increase its intelligence, it would eventually reach the point at which it could build houses, kitchens, dining room tables, and clothing. What type of city would those monkeys create for themselves? What would their clothing look like? How would they eat their meals? Would they show civilized behavior, like humans, or would they continue to behave like animals? Would they have any artwork or decorations in their city, and if so, what kind?

I don't think that merely increasing the intelligence of a monkey will cause him to become civilized. I think that civilized behavior is due to emotional differences between us, not intellectual differences. The reason I say that is because I don't see any correlation between the civilized behavior of humans and their intelligence. There are some stupid people who show civilized behavior, and there are some intelligent people that behave more like animals.

Men and women do not seem to be identical in their civilized behavior. Women show a stronger interest in having meals with other people, and presenting those meals in an attractive manner. They also show more of an interest in decorating homes and clothing, and they have a strong tendency to get people together for social affairs and recreation.

I think the difference between men and women is the result of the difference in the way we select a mate. Men want women to be a pleasure in their lives, whereas women want men to be able to support for a family. Therefore, men are attracted to the women who behave better than an animal, whereas women are attracted to the men who can provide them with lots of food and material items.

Do you notice or appreciate what other people do?

Most people don't appreciate something until it has been taken away from them. For example, most people don't appreciate having legs until they lose one of them, and most people don't appreciate having eyesight until they go blind.

I think the reason we have elaborate funerals is because most people don't appreciate other people until they die. I think that if we were more capable of appreciating people while they were alive, we would have less of a craving to sulk when they die.

Animals have no desire or ability to appreciate life. They merely respond to emotional stimulation. When a dog is hungry, it wants food, and it doesn't care how it gets food, or where the food comes from. All a dog is concerned with is satisfying its emotional cravings.

Baby humans and mentally retarded humans are very similar to animals because they cannot think very well, and that causes their emotions to dominate their behavior. When a baby human is hungry, it wants food, and just like a dog, it will not appreciate the meal we provide it.

If an adult were to never think, he would resemble an animal, or a mentally retarded human, or a baby. People would describe him as being "emotional" rather than as "calm and rational". The adult would notice every irritation in his life, but he would be oblivious to all of the wonderful things. When he was hungry, he would want food, but he would not appreciate the farmers who grew the food, or the people who ship the food, or the people who prepared the food. He would want a house, but he would not appreciate the carpenters who built the house, or the plumbers who provided him with running water.

Each of us is well aware of the wonderful things that we have done, and how hard we work, but how many people noticed the wonderful things that other people do? How many people appreciate other people?

How many of the people who have a cell phone are thankful that a lot of people put a lot of time and effort into developing the phone, manufacturing the phone, designing and maintaining a radio network for the phones, and designing batteries for the phone? How many people in the world appreciate electricity, or the people who provide it for them? How many people appreciate the dentists who provide them with dental care?

A child has no concern that somebody put a lot of time and effort into providing him with food, clothing, or a bed to sleep in. A child will consider it amusing to throw food around the room or destroy material items. They cannot appreciate food, material items, or life.

Adults have the ability to appreciate life and people, but how many adults do so? How many husbands appreciate what their wife is doing for them? How many wives appreciate what their husband does? Most people focus on what irritates them. They whine about not having enough material items, not having enough freedom, not being given enough respect, and not having enough land.

The reason people are so unappreciative is because this is what makes the most sense for an animal. The only sensible way to design an animal is to give it emotional cravings and let it spend its life trying to satisfy those cravings. Animals focus on eliminating the irritations in life. They want to eat food; they don't want to appreciate food. They want to fight for territory; they don't want to appreciate the beauty of the earth.

Now that humans are no longer struggling to survive, we need to evolve into a more advanced creature. We need to be less focused on titillating our emotional cravings and more interested in appreciating life and people. It is idiotic for us to continue fighting one another for food, territory, and material items. We should start sharing the world with other people and working with them to make life better for everybody.

Men and women need more equality
 

As with male falcons, prehistoric men spent their entire lives struggling to provide their family with food, tools, and protection.

During prehistoric times, each man spent each day searching for food and making tools, and for the purpose of supporting his family. Each man was a slave to his wife, and he struggled to please her. Men provided their wives with food, furs, and tools, and their wives enjoyed every item that he gave to her.

Prehistoric men would rarely, if ever, tell their wives what to do with the food or furs that they gave to them. Each woman would make her own decisions on how to divide the food between herself and her children, and how to provide the children with furs, toys, bedding materials, and tools. The men did not "micromanage" their family.

During the day, while the men were hunting, each woman was on her own to figure out how to spend the day. They did not have to follow orders from the men, and they did not work in teams with other women. As a result of these different lifestyles, men are more comfortable working in highly structured teams, whereas women have a preference for being more independent.

Also, prehistoric men had a tendency to quietly focus on one particular task at a time, such as hunting or making tools, whereas women tended to work around other women and children, so there were lots of conversations, and lots of interruptions.

Even though each prehistoric woman was on her own to do as she pleased, her emotions caused her to be a slave to her children. Rather than focus on herself, she spent most of her time struggling to provide her children with food, teaching them how to speak, grooming them, making clothing items for them, and teaching them about the world. If there was not enough food for everybody, she would often sacrifice her meal in order to feed her children.

The children in that era would not have spent much time whining that their mother was abusing them simply because their mother was not denying them anything. Their mother would struggle to give them everything they asked for. In that era, the children were asking for simple things, such as food, water, simplistic toys, and clothing items. Their mother would not have been able to give them everything they wanted, but because she was trying to get those things, the children would not feel as if she was abusing them. Prehistoric mothers rarely told their children "No" when they asked for something. Instead, they would respond with something like, "I'll try to get it for you."

To further reduce arguments between mothers and their children, since the people were nomadic, the children never had to do household chores, yard work, or go to school, and so their mother never irritated them by telling them to do things that they didn't want to do.

The crude, master-slave relationship worked perfectly in prehistoric times because it caused the men to take care of the women, and it caused the women to take care of the children. There would have been very few arguments between the men and women, or between the women and children.

However, our environment has changed dramatically. For example, men today are no longer bringing small amounts of food or furs to their wife. Instead, they are making lots of money, and this requires decisions to be made on how to spend the money. How much food, jewelry, beer, lottery tickets, and astrology predictions should be purchased with that money? How much money should they spend on a house, furniture, automobile, and vacations? Should a man make the decisions on how to spend the money, and then give food and other items to his wife? Or should he give the money to his wife, and let her make the decisions on how to spend it? Or should both the men and women discuss the issue together and compromise on policies?

To complicate the issue, many women today have jobs, and this creates the dilemma of who does the housework and childcare. It also creates the dilemma of deciding how to spend the wife's income.

Raising children has also changed dramatically. Mothers no longer have to struggle to keep their children alive. Instead, they have a lot of decisions to make, such as how much food and which food to give their children; where to send their children to school; and whether their children should have cell phones or video games. Should the children be required to help with household chores? If so, which chores? Should each mother resolve the childcare issues by herself? Or should her husband get involved with the issue?

Prehistoric men and women would not have had many arguments simply because there were very few issues for them to argue about. If we could go back in time 50,000 years, we would undoubtedly find that men and women were enjoying one another much more than most men and women are doing today. We would also notice that there were significantly fewer arguments between children and their mothers. The children would not whine for candy bars or complain about household chores. Furthermore, nature got rid of the sickly and retarded children, so none of the mothers were burdened with that problem.

Since the male and female mind evolved for a very simple life, we never developed the intellectual abilities or emotional desires to discuss complex issues with one another, research the issues, or compromise on solutions. It is natural for men and women to flirt with each other, and it is natural for men to get on their hands and knees and beg a woman for marriage, but it is not natural for men and women to get together for a serious discussion about life, or to compromise with one another. In order for men and women to deal with the problems of the modern world, both of us must push ourselves into thinking, discussing, and compromising.

Now that we have dramatically changed our environment, we should improve upon our crude master-slave relationship. Men and women need to become more equal. One reason that the master-slave relationship is idiotic today is that we have the technology to produce phenomenal amounts of food and material wealth. As a result, when a man follows his craving to pamper his wife with food and material wealth, he ends up providing her with excessive amounts.

During prehistoric times, the women craved items that were truly useful to the family, such as food, furs, and tools. Women were constantly putting pressure on men to give them more food and more material items, and a man would be proud of himself for providing his wife with those items. No man could provide his family with too much of anything.

In our era, however, a man can hurt his family if he mindlessly delivers piles of money to his wife, and his wife can hurt the children if she mindlessly gives the children everything they ask for. The most obvious example are the women who let their children eat whatever they please, and in whatever quantity, resulting in children that become obese, sickly, or malnourished.

Toys are another example of this problem. During prehistoric times, children would play with extremely simple toys, such as sticks and rocks. The children could play games with one another with those type of toys, and that would be beneficial to them. Today, however, people in the wealthy nations are providing their children with enormous numbers of expensive toys, but where is the evidence that modern toys are more beneficial to children than some wooden sticks?

Many children play with modern toys by themselves, or over an Internet connection, and that may be unhealthy for children. Children might become physically healthier and better able to form friendships and marriages if they spend their childhood playing with other children. Furthermore, the toys are a burden on the mother and father because they have to pay for the toys, and the toys clutter the house, closets, attic, garage, and basement.

Children are titillated by gifts, but I don't think that many of the toys that American families are giving their children are truly beneficial. The children quickly lose interest in the toys, and then they end up in the trash. Our society is wasting time, talent, and resources on the production of toys, and the toys are increasing the size of our garbage dumps.

Houses are another example of this problem. When people were nomadic, a home was just a temporary location to sleep at night. The prehistoric men would provide their family with a home simply by clearing away the tree branches and rocks, and perhaps providing a pile of leaves or furs for their children to sleep on. None of those men could take the issue of homebuilding to an extreme.

In our era, however, when men and women mindlessly follow their emotional cravings, they can end up providing themselves with gigantic homes on gigantic plots of land. Rather than improve life for the family, they burden themselves with maintenance chores. The large homes also increase the distance between people, thereby adding to the loneliness of the modern world. Those large distances also increase the time and money that people must waste traveling to their jobs and friends, and it increases the number of traffic accidents. If the city has snow or ice during the winter, the people have to travel long distances over dangerous and irritating roads.

When a prehistoric man struggled to bring home as much food and material wealth as possible, he was taking care of his family. When a prehistoric woman gave her children as much food and material items as possible, she was taking care of her children. In our era, when men and women behave in that manner, they are wasting their time, talent, and resources on unnecessary material items, food, and large houses.

In our era, both men and women should push themselves into forming a more sensible relationship with each other and with their children. Women should stop being slaves of their children and start providing them with guidance. Men should get off their hands and knees, stop worshiping women, and provide their family with guidance.

Society should provide guidance

Since most men are only of average intelligence, and half of the men are below average, it would be foolish to tell the men to provide guidance to their wives because most of the men would make dumb decisions. Likewise, the typical woman will make dumb decisions on how to raise children.

A better solution for this modern world is for society to provide guidance to everybody. Society should be involved with the decisions about how much of each food item to produce, how much cosmetics and jewelry to produce, how many toys to produce, and what type of toys to produce.

During prehistoric times, the men had to spend their entire lives struggling to provide their wife and children with food and other items, and the women had to spend their entire lives struggling to take care of their children and protect them from predators and other dangers. However, in our era, we no longer have to struggle to provide ourselves with food, a home, or material items. We can easily provide everybody with adequate amounts of food and material wealth. We also don't have to watch our children constantly because we don't have the problem of predators trying to eat them.

A man should no longer devote his life to gathering as much food and material items as possible, and a woman should no longer devote her life to taking care of her children. It is becoming increasingly easy for us to raise children, and it will become even easier if we stop being tolerant of crime. Without crime, children become free to wander around the city without adult supervision. Parents will not have to be bodyguards to their children, and that will allow them to find something better to do with their lives.

Our prehistoric ancestors struggled each day to survive. With modern technology, we no longer have that problem. We can so easily support ourselves and our families today that we have the option of dramatically changing the purpose of our existence. Instead of struggling to compete with one another for the most food and material wealth as possible, we can share the Earth's resources with one another, and we can work together for the benefit of all people. We can design beautiful cities, and we can provide the cities with a wide variety of recreational, social, and intellectual activities.

So, why do women get pestered by men?

Male animals evolved a desire to aggressively pursue females, even if the female shows no interest in him. Even if we did not want to be aggressive, we have no other option because females are inherently passive. If we waited for woman to show an interest in us, most of us would wait forever. There are only a few men who don't have to pursue women, such as Elvis Presley.

Most men have no choice but to pursue women and try to impress them. The more undesirable a man is, the more effort he has to put into chasing after women.

If each woman came with an instruction manual that explained what a man needs to do in order to impress her, then we would know how to treat a woman. Unfortunately, the women will not provide us with any clues or assistance. It is up to each man to figure out for himself how to attract a woman's attention, and how to impress her.

How can a man know what to say to impress a woman? All we can do is try different remarks and see what happens. Both men and women suffer because of this crude method of finding a spouse.

The men who have bizarre personalities, or who are stupid, or who picked up idiotic ideas from music videos or movies, are likely to annoy the women with idiotic remarks, whistling, or lewd remarks. Some men might come to the conclusion that they can impress a woman with their physical qualities, or by boasting about how they know famous people. Men who are drunk or on drugs might make lots of idiotic decisions about how to impress the women.

Some women might respond that lewd remarks will not impress a woman, but it is possible that the men who make lewd remarks are not expecting the women to be impressed. Rather, they may be like Elliot Rodger; specifically, angry and bitter that they are unable to attract a woman, and their frustration is coming out in the form of lewd remarks and insults.

It should be obvious that our courtship characteristics are crude, and that it results in a lot of frustration, awkwardness, irritation, and anger for both the men and the women.

The women complain that they are being bothered by men, but men are bothered by the process, also. It is not just the women who are suffering.

The feminists believe that they can improve the situation by reprimanding men, but the only way to improve this situation is to start experimenting with different courtship procedures, and to start restricting reproduction to the men and women who have the most suitable emotional and intellectual characteristics. The problem is not due to men, or to women. It is due to human nature. It is due to the fact that humans are intelligent monkeys who were designed for a simple, nomadic life in a small tribe.

We need to develop courtship procedures that don't require men to pursue, impress, or titillate the women, and we need to put pressure on the women to stop behaving like passive monkeys and start taking a more active role in helping men find a spouse. Both men and women have to push themselves into being more honest about themselves and helping a potential spouse determine their compatibility.

As I suggested in previous documents, we should eliminate secrecy and restrict courtship to certain activities rather than allowing men to pursue women in public areas. This would allow women to wander around in public without being bothered by lewd remarks or aggressive men.

Both men and women would benefit from these changes because it would spare both of us from suffering with the crude, animal-like courtship that we suffer from today. We wouldn't have to wonder who is single or who is married, or who has something in common with us. Anybody who wanted to look for a spouse would know that they can find lots of single people at the courtship activities, and that the people will be pushed into being honest about themselves and suppressing their attempt to impress one another with a false image.

Females care about social status, not mental qualities

Another characteristic of females that causes trouble in the world today is that they have a preference for males who are high in the social hierarchy. The reason animals developed this characteristic should be obvious; it is nature's way of ensuring that the better quality males reproduce more often than the lower quality males. In our era, however, this behavioral characteristic is causing trouble for us. Five reasons are:

1) There are too many women today for the dominant men to deal with.
A man such as Elvis Presley will find millions of women around the world offering themselves to him. The reason this characteristic evolved in women is to allow the dominant men to produce more children, but today the men are likely to avoid getting the women pregnant, so they defeat the purpose of the characteristic. The men will instead have sex simply for pleasure.

2) The children have abnormal lives.
Occasionally one of the women gets pregnant, but the famous man is not likely to live near the woman, or even be interested in becoming the father of the child. He is likely to abandon the woman and his child, and pretend that he doesn't know them. He may secretly send them financial support, but that child will grow up in an abnormal family, and the child will have to hide the truth about his father. I don't think this is healthy for the child.

3) The pregnancies create resentment or anger.
The women that the famous men get pregnant are not living in this world by themselves. They are somebody's friend, mother, sister, or daughter. Those other people are likely to be annoyed or disgusted that a famous man got the woman pregnant and then denied that he is the father. Every time another famous man does this, he causes a few more people to become angry, bitter, or resentful. This is not beneficial to society. Men in influential positions should be improving people's attitudes, not increasing the levels of resentment, anger, and bitterness.

4) Men who are high in the hierarchy today are not necessarily desirable.
With animals, the dominant male is always strong, healthy, and beneficial to the tribe, but in modern societies, many undesirable men are becoming rich and famous for a variety of undesirable reasons, such as crime, inheritances, and gambling. When women give preference to those men, they are helping the human race to degrade into freaks.

Feminists often whine that men have some undesirable characteristics, such as arrogance and bad tempers, but part of the reason that men are this way is because women have never shown an interest in a man's mental qualities. A man with a criminal background has no trouble attracting women, if he has money. A man with no skills and no desire to do anything of value can also attract women, if he has money. In our era, women should have a concern for a man's mental qualities.

5) Women prefer entertainers, not intellectuals
Animals don't have much intelligence, and so the females never developed an interest in judging the mental qualities of a male animal. Instead, a female animal judges a male by his ability to titillate her emotions.

Human women also show no interest in the intellectual characteristics of a man, or his sense of responsibility, honesty, or concern for society. Women also don't care whether he can control his alcohol consumption, temper, arrogance, envy, or anger. Women don't analyze a man's mind. Rather, they passively wait for men to titillate them.

British police struggle to control women at a Beatles concert in 1965. Those policemen may have made better husbands than the musicians, but women don't care. Women are attracted to entertainment, money, and status, not to intelligence, skills, or honesty.

Elvis Presley titillated millions of women simply by singing. If Elvis Presley had been one of the most talented airline mechanics, engineers, scientists, or carpenters, many men would have been impressed by his abilities, but no woman would have noticed or cared.

Women are titillated by a man who can sing and dance, but their emotions are not stimulated by a man who can produce intelligent thoughts, control his temper, fix a robotic drone, or resist the bribes of crime networks. As a result, the entertainers attract millions of women, but other men have to struggle to attract just one.

Women are impressed by a man's expensive house, but not by a man's sense of responsibility. A woman is impressed when a man gives her a diamond ring, but not by a man who gives her some intelligent information.

When young girls fantasize about a husband, they fantasize about a wealthy man, or a man who can sing and dance, not a man with skills, intelligence, or control of his arrogance.

If women were truly better than men, then women would give preference to the men who were better behaved, more honest, and more useful to society. They would avoid the criminals, psychotic men, and parasitic men. This would help to breed men into a better creature.

The same concept applies to men. Men are more interested in a woman's visual appearance and personality than in her intellectual abilities or skills. This causes women to develop a strong craving to look pretty, but no craving to learn, think, or explore. It creates women who have a nice personality, but not much intelligence. In our era, men have to develop a greater interest in a woman's intellectual abilities.

Animals don't understand themselves

It is easy for us to realize that an amoeba does not have the ability to understand its behavior or predict its future, but what about cats, dogs, or elephants? Can any of them understand themselves or predict their future? I don't think so. I think this is an ability that only humans have.

If birds had enough intelligence to speak to us, and if we were to ask a male peacock why he is displaying his feathers at females, he would give us an extremely simplistic answer, such as, "I enjoy it". I don't think any male peacock has the intelligence necessary to realize that he has those particular emotional cravings because it is nature's way of determining which of the male peacocks will reproduce.

If we were to ask a female peacock why she watches the male peacocks, she would also give us a stupid answer, such as, "I am not watching them". She would be unaware that she was passively observing the males, and that occasionally one of the males titillates her to such an extent that she becomes sexually receptive.

When a female animal is being pursued by a male, I don't think the females are capable of understanding that there is a possibility that she will become sexually aroused by the male, and then the male will mate with her, and then she will get pregnant. When a male animal jumps on a female, I suspect that the female is initially shocked and upset. However, because she is sexually receptive, she is willing to hold still for a moment. In other words, I think her mind is going through an emotional conflict in which one emotion is shocked and appalled that the male has jumped on top of her, while another emotion is telling her to hold still for a moment because it feels good. As soon as that sexual emotion is satisfied, the other emotion takes over and she runs away.

If my assumption is correct, then if female animals could talk to us, I think they would describe most sexual encounters as unexpected attacks, or "rapes", or "date rapes". I think that from the point of view of a female animal, she was innocently watching the males when he suddenly jumped on top of her and raped her. However, even though the females might complain that they were "date raped", after they raised their babies they would once again develop a craving to "flirt" with the males, and that would lead to another date rape. I don't think any female animals have the intelligence necessary to understand that they are partly responsible for date rapes.

The reason I don't believe any animal can understand these concepts is because the concept is not obvious to humans, so how could it be obvious to animals? Young girls are a good example of this. A young girl will sometimes flirt with older boys without any expectation or understanding that she may inadvertently cause one of the boys to become sexually aroused. If one of the boys were to touch or have sex with her, she would be shocked. She would complain that she had no idea that he would do such a thing. She would complain that she was innocently watching him when he attacked her for no reason.

Young girls flirt with boys without any idea that they are flirting, or why they are flirting, or that the flirting might lead to sex. They are just like the stupid animals who go through courtship procedures without any idea of what they are doing or why.

A young human girl is much more intelligent than any animal, and she is much more educated, but she has no idea that she is "flirting" with boys, and she has no idea that her "having fun" might result in sex. How could a stupid animal know more than she does?

The same concept applies to boys. Boys have a craving to flirt with girls, but boys do not inherently know that flirting can cause them to become sexually aroused, and that sex can lead to pregnancy or venereal disease. Without an education about these issues, a boy would flirt with a girl without any understanding what it could lead to. If she gets pregnant, he would be shocked. He would respond with a remark similar to, "I was just having fun! I didn't know she was going to get pregnant."

Since humans do not inherently understand that flirting can lead to sex, and that sex can lead to babies, how could animals understand it?

Another way to understand the sexual attitude of female animals is to observe the way some pet dogs want humans to throw balls for them to chase, but when the dogs bring the balls back to the humans, they have a difficult time letting go of the ball. They have the ball in their mouth, and they bring the ball near the human so that he can grab it, but as soon as he tries to grab it, one of their emotions is triggered that causes the dog to back away. The dog has a conflict going on inside its mind. One emotion wants the human to take the ball, but a different emotion does not want another animal to take its possessions.

Human women are the same in regards to sex. They will flirt with and get close to men, especially rich and famous men, but when the man tries to touch them, they back away. One emotion wants affection and sex, but other emotions want the men to stay away by a certain distance. Trying to be affectionate or have sex with those women is like trying to get a ball from a dog's mouth.

I think it's also important to consider the possibility that female animals never truly "enjoy" sex. I think that from the point of view of a female animal, sex would be better described as a "pleasurable rape". I think they always have a conflict going on inside their minds because they have some emotions that are upset that the male animal is doing it to them, but at the same time their sexual emotions are telling them to hold still because it feels good. Since the sexual pleasure is very brief, and since it is occurring at the same time that other emotions are creating unpleasant feelings, I don't think the females can truly enjoy the sex.

By comparison, the male animals can enjoy sex because they don't have any conflicting emotions that are struggling to make them stop and run away from the female. They can relax and enjoy themselves.

I suspect that the same situation occurs with humans. I don't think many women truly enjoy sex. I suspect that the female human mind suffers from the same emotional turmoil as the female animal mind. The women have an emotion that enjoys the sex, but they have other emotions that are embarrassed by it, and other emotions that don't want men touching them. I suspect that for most women, sex is better described as a form of pleasurable rape.

In order for a woman to enjoy sex, she needs to get control of her emotions and learn to relax. She is not going to enjoy sex if she is embarrassed by it or upset with what the man is doing. Furthermore, to truly enjoy sex, she has to let the man know what she enjoys. Although men and women evolved to be compatible with each other, evolution did not do a very good job. Evolution does only the bare minimum necessary; it does not do what is ideal. Therefore, if women want to truly enjoy sex, they need to put some effort into analyzing their sexual feelings as they have sex, and she and her partner must experiment to figure out what she enjoys the most.

How many women have the desire or ability to analyze their sexual feelings? How many women have the ability or desire to talk to their partner about these issues and experiment with sex? I suspect that most women are too sexually inhibited and too dumb to do this type of analysis and experimentation. Therefore, I don't think many women are truly enjoying sex.

Furthermore, I don't think many women have a partner who is capable of discussing these issues or experimenting with sex. Most men seem to have sexual inhibitions that are too powerful to allow them to discuss these issues. Most men are also so arrogant that they have trouble dealing with the possibility that they are not the world's greatest lover, and that their wife is not enjoying the sex, and that they need to learn more about the issue.

The arrogance of men causes trouble for more than just sex. All around the world we can find men who are firmly convinced that they know the correct policy for religion, marijuana, alcohol, abortion, and euthanasia. Every man is a super genius who knows everything there is to know. Men don't want to listen to other people; rather, we want to give lectures to other people. We want to impress women, not listen to them complain that we are not pleasing them sexually.

We need an education on animal behavior

In a previous file, I pointed out that we design zoo exhibits according to the physical and mental characteristics of the animals, and that is what we must do for humans. We need to gather information about how our mind and body react to different environmental events, and that knowledge will enable us to design an environment that will keep us in good physical health, and which will encourage productive behavior.

If humans were a creation of some god, then we might be able to learn about ourselves by studying religious materials, but since we are an animal that evolved from other animals, we need to study animals and evolution in order to understand ourselves.

A human, even if he is intelligent, cannot understand himself or design a better economic system or holiday celebration if he doesn't know much about natural selection or animal behavior, or if he believes that humans are a creation of a god. Ignorant and religious people develop idiotic theories to explain human behavior and life, such as blaming crime on poverty, and explaining a baby boy with four arms and four legs as a miracle from some god.

Religious and ignorant people cannot improve our lives because they will design school systems, government system, and social affairs according to some religious fantasy or idiotic assumptions, and that will result in a social environment that is inappropriate for our mental and physical qualities.

Actually, religious people are evidence of a characteristic of our mind that we must be aware of and deal with. Specifically, the human mind does not have any inherent concern for reality or the truth. Our mind is concerned with pleasing itself, and so we have a tendency to believe whatever is most emotionally pleasing, regardless of the evidence. When reality is pleasant, we will accept it, but otherwise we disregard it as idiotic and believe something more desirable.

For example, we don't like to think of ourselves as decaying like a dead animal when we die. We prefer to believe that after we die, we will have another, even better life. There is no evidence for this theory, but many people, possibly the majority, do not care that there is no evidence. The human mind does not care about the truth. We want pleasure, not the truth.

The qualities of our mind make sense when you understand that we are animals. An animal's goal in life is simply to reproduce. An animal is just a bunch of mindless chemicals. An animal spends each day trying to titillate its emotional cravings. Whether the animal enjoys life, sex, or food is irrelevant. All that matters is that the animal successfully reproduce.

Since an animal brain is just a simplistic human brain, we can assume that if animals were a bit more intelligent, they would also believe in gods, life after death, and astrology rather than evolution and science.

Although humans are much more intelligent than animals, if we don't use our intelligence and think about what we are doing with our life, we will closely resemble an animal that merely exists from one day to the next. We will waste our life trying to stimulate our cravings for material items, territory, babies, sex, and status. We will resist thinking, learning, and looking critically at ourselves. We will not necessarily enjoy life, food, or other people.

The emotions of an animal could be described as the "operating system" for the animal. Emotions control the animal's behavior by creating "feelings" or "cravings". As the animal tries to satisfy those cravings, it eats food, drinks water, defends its territory, avoids predators, reproduces, and raises babies.

Emotions evolved only for the purpose of keeping an animal alive and allowing it to reproduce. Animals never developed a craving to learn, look critically at themselves, or deal with reality.

Our prehistoric ancestors survived quite nicely while behaving like animals, but people today need to meet a higher standard. Animal behavior is becoming increasingly inappropriate. People must become more considerate, more honest, and more concerned about society. We need to be able to learn a useful skill and work in teams. We also need a better ability to compromise, accept failure, cope with reality, and learn from critical reviews.

People today also need a much better understanding of human behavior in order to form stable friendships and marriages. Men and women are often irritating one another, and I would say the primary reason is because most people are behaving too much like animals. Our prehistoric ancestors could form stable relationships despite their ignorance because their relationships were simplistic. In our era, however, married couples have a lot of complex issues to deal with.

We also form relationships today that didn't exist in prehistoric times, such as teacher-student relationships, and employer-employee relationships. We are also forming relationships with people in foreign nations, and many people are forming friendships and business relationships with people they know only through the Internet or the telephone system.

Is it healthy for children to form "cell phone relationships"? Or is this creating socially awkward children? This is an issue our prehistoric ancestors never had to deal with, but we need to start studying this issue and experimenting with our environment.

Our prehistoric ancestors didn't have to do anything to form a friendship or a marriage; they simply followed their emotions and the relationships formed naturally. Today we need to put time and effort into analyzing people in order to form stable marriages, productive business relationships, and effective relationships between teachers and students, and between managers and their employees.

Girls today need to be aware of "date rape"

If we ask a group of young, single women why they spend so much time trying to look pretty, and then wandering around in public, they would give us a stupid answer, such as that they are "having fun". They are unaware, or unwilling to accept, the fact that they are putting themselves on display, and waiting for a man to pursue and titillate them. Furthermore, those women expect men to entertain them, buy them dinners, and buy them gifts, while they give the men nothing in return.

How are such ignorant women going to find a compatible husband or avoid date rape? They are not taking an active role in finding a husband, and they do not work with the men to determine whether they are compatible. Some of those women don't even seem to realize that what they are doing could lead to sex, or date rapes.

There are different types of date rapes. In some cases a woman clearly lets the man know that she does not want sex, and when the man disregards her, we could say that he really did rape her. For example, Joan Collins recently claimed that when she went on a date with a famous entertainer, he drugged her, and while she was partly unconscious, he raped her. If she is being honest, we could describe that situation as a rape.

However, there are some rape cases in which women do not put up resistance to sex, and in those cases, the victims are not truly "victims". Rather, they are behaving like a female animal that flirts with the males and is surprised when one of them jumps on her back, but she does nothing to stop him. Instead of describing those women as innocent victims, it would be better to describe them as ignorant and/or stupid monkeys who don't have a good understanding of themselves, men, or relationships.

How can we stop or reduce date rapes? One method would be to start educating girls on how the female mind works. Girls should understand why they have a craving to look pretty and put themselves on display, and they should understand why men want to buy them dinners and entertain them. They need an understanding of men and women, sex, and human relationships.

It is idiotic for people in our era to send children into the world with no understanding of themselves or human behavior. We are not primitive savages any longer. Children need preparation for our more complex world. Adults must push themselves into suppressing their sexual inhibitions and allowing schools to teach children about relationships, sex, pregnancy, and other issues.

We do not let a person fly an airplane until we train him on how to do the job properly. We don't let children use power tools until we teach them how to use those tools correctly. Why not apply this philosophy to sex and relationships between men and women? You would not expect your child to figure out for himself how to drive an automobile, so why expect him to figure out sex and marriage?

Instead of expecting children to learn about sex and human relationships on their own, the adults need to exert enough control over their sexual inhibitions to allow the schools to provide children with information about these issues. By the time the children are adults, they should have a lot of information about marriage, sex, diseases, divorce, and other issues. They should be prepared for courtship and marriage rather than confused by it or afraid of it.

How many women have been drugged and raped?

Joan Collins claimed that she was drugged and raped when she was 17 years old, and there are accusations that Bill Cosby also drugged and raped women. There are lots of police reports about other people being drugged and either raped or robbed. Some doctors and dentists had been caught having sex with some of their unconscious patients, including children, as I mentioned here. There are also lots of women who claim that men encouraged them to drink alcohol so that the men could take advantage of them sexually.

Although most of these type of accusations are against men, women sometimes do this, also. For example, some women will get a man drunk and lead him into sex so that she can get pregnant, thereby pressuring him into getting married to her. And some women seem to encourage men to become intoxicated in the hope that the men will spend more money on them. If we are going to complain about men who abuse women, why not complain about the women who abuse men?

There are also lots of reports of men and women getting a person intoxicated in order to make it easier to get that person to sign a purchase order, or to change their will and testament. This problem became so obvious and extreme during the 1980s that the government decided to forbid government employees from having dinners and personal contact with salesmen.

I know an electrical engineer who worked for IBM many years ago. He told me that the IBM managers would do virtually anything to get the CIA contracts. He said one of the CIA agents would pick one of the women in the office that he was attracted to, and the IBM manager would try to arrange a "date" for him. The electrical engineer believes that the woman was agreeing to provide him with sex, perhaps because she was getting paid a lot of money for the sex, but it is possible that she was just agreeing to go on an ordinary "date" with a CIA agent who was such a loser that he could not get a date on his own. Regardless, it could be described as unacceptable behavior by both the CIA agent and the IBM manager.

If we could remove the secrecy and truly observe how people treat one another, we might find that there is a lot more secret druggings than we realize, and a lot of men and women are encouraging one another to become intoxicated simply so that they can take advantage of the intoxicated person, and a lot of people may be doing favors in return for sex.

Furthermore, if we were to remove secrecy and observe people, I think we would discover that certain groups of people have a more significant problem with this type of behavior than others. For example, I suspect that the entertainers are more involved with drugging one another than farmers, architects, and airline mechanics. I also suspect that there are more people giving and receiving sexual favors in the entertainment business than in the other businesses.

Women should be able to look around as they walk

In case you never noticed, when women walk around in public, they have a tendency to look straight ahead or down at the ground, and they try to avoid eye contact with men. They don't notice much of the world around them. One reason is simply because women don't have much of an interest in the world. Men have a noticeably stronger interest in looking out of the windows of trains and airplanes, and men have a stronger interest in exploring forests and coral reefs. Women are primarily interested in babies and children. Women will notice the children in their vicinity, but they don't pay much attention to the clouds, architecture, trees, cement mixers, or bulldozers.

If women had as much interest in the world as men, they would want to look around themselves as they walked, but that would cause trouble in the world today because they would occasionally make eye contact with men. The man would often interpret that as a sign that she is interested in him, and that could cause the man to pursue the woman, or make remarks to her, thereby irritating her and wasting both of their lives.

If we were to change our society so that courtship is restricted to certain, designated activities, then women would be free to look around themselves when they were in public. They would even be able to say hello to the men.

I would say that both men and women would have a more pleasant, relaxed life if we prohibited courtship in public areas and restricted it to special activities. This type of change would allow both of us to avoid the crude and embarrassing courtship procedures that we have to go through today. Furthermore, we would eventually figure out how to design very effective courtship activities, and this would result in men and women finding significantly more compatible spouses, which would benefit both men and women.

We have nothing to lose and a lot to gain by developing more advanced courtship procedures, so what is stopping us from doing it? The only thing stopping us are the people in this world. The majority of them do not want to think, experiment with their culture, look critically at themselves, try something different, or push themselves into controlling their crude behavior. The only way to improve the world is to find a lot of people who have the intellectual ability and desire to control their emotions and experiment with their future.

There are hundreds of rumors, accusations, and police reports that suggest the entertainment businesses attract a slightly different type of person compared to construction companies, engineering companies, farming, and other professions. The entertainment businesses seem to have a significantly higher percentage of pedophiles, murderers, crime networks, homosexuals, drug abusers, and alcoholics. There are also a wide variety of mental disorders among the entertainers.

As is typical of people, the entertainers try to keep their personal life a secret, and especially their emotional problems. The actors and actresses are especially good at creating a phony image of themselves. They would actually help themselves and other people if they would force themselves to be honest about their life. This would allow us to see what is going on in the entertainment business, and what kind of people are getting involved, and how they are treating one another. We cannot improve a situation until we know the truth about what is happening. Their secrecy is allowing crime networks to thrive, and allowing a lot of abuse to occur.

Joan Collins claims that Maxwell Reed drugged and raped her, and other women are complaining that Bill Cosby did the same to them. If at least some of those accusations are true, it is extremely unlikely that Reed and Cosby are the only entertainers involved with that activity. Where did those men get the drugs? Where did they get the idea to do it? How did they know how much of the drug to give a woman? Why were so many people willing to ignore the druggings or help to keep them a secret?

If we could remove the secrecy in the entertainment business, we might find that a lot of men are drugging people in order to use them for sex, and that the drugs are easily available because there are so many people using them. We might find that the men are explaining to one another which drugs to use, and how much of the drug. They might also be encouraging one another to use these drugs because the more people that use them, the more people who will help keep the activity a secret. A man would not want to be the only person doing this. He would prefer to be surrounded by other men who are also doing it.

Roman Polanski was convicted of drugging and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl. What are the chances that he was the only man in the entertainment business to do this to a child? For all we know, children are regularly drugged, raped, and sodomized in the entertainment business, but most of the children may be given such large amounts of the drugs that they never gain consciousness during the rape and, therefore, are unaware that it occurred.

Ordinary people cannot become famous

Each person's life is a reflection of his mental qualities and desires. Each of us decides how much time and effort to put into making money, talking with friends, watching television, getting drunk, doing yardwork, and cleaning our house. Each of us also decides whether we want to shoplift, burglarize houses, or lie about our age and weight.

As I pointed out in other files, life is like a smorgasbord that offers us virtually unlimited opportunities. We can choose from a wide variety of jobs, philosophies, lifestyles, hobbies, foods, drugs, clothing, tattoos, pets, artwork, and friends.

Not many people, if any, get exactly what they want from life, but it is important to note that nobody picks from life's smorgasbord at random. We are picking the things that we like the most, or that we dislike the least.

The majority of people have a life that is very similar to one another because they all have very similar mental and physical characteristics. If a person has an unusual life, we can assume that there is something unusual about his mental and/or physical characteristics. Ordinary people do not end up having unusual lives.

The people who become billionaires, for example, are not ordinary people who became a billionaire due to luck or coincidence. They had both the desire to become billionaires, and the ability to do it.

The significance of this is that whenever we find a person who excels in something or has an unusual life, we should assume that there is a significant difference between his mental and physical characteristics and those of the typical person. Instead of being surprised to discover that he is unusual, we should expect it.

The people who don't like the concept of evolution promote the theory that we are all virtually the same, and that any of us can become a billionaire or Olympic athlete, but this is nonsense. The people who end up with significantly different lives are not ordinary people. There is something genetically different about the people who end up with different lives.

Furthermore, their difference may not be admirable. In some cases, a person ends up with an unusual life, such as becoming a billionaire, famous government official, or famous athlete, because he is suffering from mental problems that cause him to have abnormally intense cravings for wealth, fame, revenge, or sex.

This concept also applies to the people who are failures in life, such as the people who are homeless, or who cannot control their alcohol, gambling, or other problems. These unusual people are not "ordinary" people who just had some bad luck. In order for a person to end up in a miserable condition, he must be physically and/or mentally different from the ordinary people.

The people who are failures in life like to imagine that they are ordinary people who suffered bad luck, or that they are "underdogs" who were abused by "overdogs", but this is nonsense. Some of those homeless people, alcoholics, and gamblers may have some wonderful qualities, but there is something seriously wrong with them that is interfering with their life. They are not going to solve their problem by feeling sorry for themselves. They need to figure out what physical or mental problem they are suffering from, and then look for a way to reduce the severity of that problem.

An ordinary person cannot become homeless or have a gambling problem simply because his mind wouldn't allow it to happen. If he found himself heading in that direction, he would do something to change the course of his life.

This concept also applies to the people who choose to become criminals or crime gang members. They are not ordinary people who coincidentally ended up in that life. They chose that life, and the reason is simply because there is something different about their mind that caused them to choose crime from the unlimited possibilities that life offered us.

There are lots of ordinary people who have the ability to be an actor, singer, athlete, or billionaire, but they don't have the desire to spend the time and effort to achieve those goals. Most of us will not spend hours a day practicing a sports event, or struggling with thousands of other people to become a famous actor, or spend 18 hours a day struggling to make money. An ordinary person wants more variety in his life. Most people want to spend only a portion of their life working, and they want time for other activities, such as visiting friends, swimming at a lake, playing with their children, watching television, or working on their hobby.

Although everybody would enjoy being a billionaire, or a famous athlete or actor, most of us do not have the craving necessary to achieve those goals. The famous people might describe us as "quitters" or as "unmotivated", but we could describe them as "neurotic".

Likewise, all of us have the ability to become burglars, rapists, and crime gang members, but most of us do not want that type of life. Many people shoplift, steal towels from a hotel, or eat small amounts of food at a market without paying for it, but they don't want to become burglars, crime gang members, or kidnappers.

The people who promote punishments as a solution to crime will claim that the people who are avoiding crime are simply afraid of jail, and that may be true of some people, but there were people avoiding criminal activities long before any society created policemen, jails, or laws.

Everybody can understand how this concept applies to material items. For example, when a factory is producing refrigerators, the employees will suspect that there is something wrong with a refrigerator if it looks or behaves differently than the others. The employees will pull that refrigerator out of the assembly line and inspect it.

If we were to apply this philosophy to people, then we would observe the way children behave, and we would assume that any child who behaves differently from the others has a significant genetic difference. We would then observe that child more closely to determine if his difference is admirable, or if it is potentially dangerous.

An unusual life is an indication of an unusual mind. There is something genetically different about the people who become crime gang members, top government officials, billionaires, homeless bums, famous athletes, or famous entertainers.

Some of the famous people have admirable qualities. For example, some people have become famous scientists because they have exceptionally good intellectual abilities, and some people became famous musicians because they have exceptionally good musical talent. However, we cannot assume that everybody who becomes famous or wealthy has admirable qualities. Many famous people seem to be better described as neurotic, and some are dishonest and diabolical. Some of them are achieving their goals through crime, sabotage, nepotism, blackmail, and manipulating other people.

Our emotions admire everybody who is high in the social hierarchy, but it would be best for us to analyze those people and pass judgment on how and why they ended up wealthy and famous. What is different about them? Did they achieve these goals in a respectable manner? Or is it the result of crime and manipulation?

A lot of people in the entertainment business are wealthy and famous, and we ought to wonder why they chose those particular lives. There is something different about them that caused them to avoid an ordinary life. Some of them were the children of famous entertainers, so they didn't have to do anything to get into the entertainment business, and some people are so good-looking or so exceptionally talented that they were offered jobs, but most of the entertainers had to struggle and compete to get into the entertainment business. Why did they have such intense cravings for wealth and fame that they would struggle for that goal? Do they have mental qualities that we should admire? Would the world be better if more people had their qualities? Or are they suffering from a mental or physical disorder?

A lot of people have fantasized a few times about being a famous entertainer, but only a small percentage of the population actually makes an attempt to become successful in the entertainment business as an actor, director, photographer, singer, or talent scout. Of the people who make an attempt to be successful, only some of them win the competitive battle. Who are the people who win that competition? Are they truly the "better" people? I don't think so.

I think the people most likely to win that battle are those who are unhappy or mentally ill. They will put amazing amounts of effort into winning the competition, and many of them will go to extremes, such as sabotaging or killing their competitors. Some will have sex with anybody who might help them to get into the entertainment business, and some are willing to bribe, manipulate, and deceive people. How can a normal, healthy, considerate, responsible person win a competitive battle with psychotic people who are willing to do virtually anything to win?

This article has the title "Famous People Get ADHD, Too". The author is trying to make ordinary people feel better about their mental problems by pointing out that many famous entertainers and athletes have mental problems, but the article would be more accurate if the title was, "Famous entertainers may have more mental problems than ordinary people."

There are so many reports of bizarre behavior and suspicious suicides and deaths among people in the entertainment business that it might be difficult for us to find somebody in that business that we could describe as having good mental health.

By the way, did you notice that the autopsy for Robin Williams was released in November 2014? The news reports in August claimed that his body was cremated before the police could give it an autopsy, whereas the news reports in November claim that the police gave it an autopsy. Not surprisingly, nobody in the entertainment business shows any concern about this incredible contradiction, and no law enforcement agency or investigative journalist seems to be interested in resolving the issue, either.

Why is the media attacking Bill Cosby?

Instead of investigating the mysterious suicide of Robin Williams, or Corey Feldman's accusation that pedophilia is the number one problem in Hollywood, in November 2014 a lot of journalists decided to produce hundreds of news reports that Bill Cosby had drugged and raped women. I will assume that the reports are based on fact and only slightly distorted, although it should be obvious that there is something suspicious about these reports.

More photos of Bryan Singer and his "friends" are here.

For example, the accusations against Bill Cosby are trivial compared to those that have been made against other people in the entertainment business, such as Bryan Singer, the Hollywood director who is accused of having sex with young boys. This leads me to the conclusion that the journalists are not attacking Bill Cosby because he has been treating women inappropriately. Rather, this is a planned and coordinated attack.

Why are the journalists who attack Bill Cosby ignoring the accusations of pedophilia and rape with Hollywood directors, school officials, congressmen, and sheriffs? Why are they ignoring the bizarre suicide of Robin Williams, and the mysterious deaths of Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston?

According to Matt Walsh, who is described as a "professional truth sayer", the reason is because Bill Cosby is a conservative, and most journalists are liberals! A more sensible explanation is that Matt Walsh and the other journalists are members or cohorts of The Tribe, and they are attacking Bill Cosby for some other reason.

As I pointed out in other files, the Chosen People do not like Bill Cosby. He is not following their agenda as the other black entertainers are doing. Perhaps the Chosen People decided to attack Cosby in order to focus our attention on him and distract us from the accusations against Bryan Singer and other people.

“I was wrong. I am so sorry! ”

Another reason the reports about Cosby are suspicious is because some journalists are publicly apologizing for not investigating the accusations years earlier. These journalists are trying to convince us that they have a strong desire to provide us with the truth, and to expose crime and bad behavior, and they feel guilty for ignoring the accusations against Bill Cosby.

However, if these journalists are truly concerned about their failure to investigate potential crimes and bad behavior, then why are they not investigating the mysterious collapse of the World Trade Center towers and Building 7? Why are they ignoring the conflicting reports about the bizarre suicide of Robin Williams, or the autopsy of his cremated body? Why don't they investigate the evidence that the Apollo moon landing was fake? Why don't they investigate the evidence that Jews are lying about the Holocaust, the Nazi party, the world wars, and thousands of other historical events?

How many of Cosby's rape victims were truly "victims"?

As I mentioned earlier, women are titillated by men who can entertain them; men who can provide them with lots of food and material wealth; and men who are high in the social hierarchy. Since famous entertainers have all three of these characteristics, women have a noticeably stronger attraction to famous entertainers than other men.

Earlier I also mentioned that young girls will flirt with older boys without any understanding or expectation of how their flirting might lead to sex. Adult women who are ignorant, dumb, or don't want to think will behave just like young girls. Specifically, they will flirt with the famous men, make eye contact with them, and try to get physically close to them. However, they won't understand why they have cravings to get close to those men.

Joan Collins is a good example. She was attracted to Maxwell Reed because he was a famous actor, not because she had analyzed his life, hobbies, and intellectual qualities and had come to the conclusion that he would be a compatible husband for her. Rather, like a stupid female animal, her emotions were titillated at the thought of meeting a wealthy entertainer. She wanted to go on a "date" with him, but why? What was she planning on doing during the date? What did she expect him to do on that date?

She was expecting Maxwell Reed to titillate her with free dinners, free gifts, and free entertainment. In return, she would do nothing. She would just enjoy his attempt to impress and entertain her. She was behaving just like a stupid, female peacock who gets near one of the male peacocks and hopes that he pursues her and titillates her with his display of feathers. Unfortunately for Joan, he was not interested in entertaining her. He secretly drugged her soon after she entered his apartment, and then raped her.

Imagine women treating men in the manner Joan Collins was treated. Imagine a man going on a date with a woman who secretly drugged him, and after he went unconscious, she uses his body for some type of sexual activity. I don't think many men would go on a second date with that woman. Men are not impressed by aggressive or abusive women. Men have cravings for well behaved princesses.

Women are the opposite in this regard. They don't care about the behavior of a man, or even whether he can pronounce words properly. Women are titillated by men who pursue them aggressively and give them gifts, even if they are abusive and crude.

Furthermore, the act of sexual intercourse has a different meaning to a female. To a male animal, sex is nothing more than entertainment, but to a female it is a signal to start a long-term relationship with the male. Sexual intercourse is like a trigger that causes a female to form a bond with the male. After having intercourse, the female expects the male to remain with her as a devoted servant. She will be disappointed or angry if he abandons her. She will feel as if she has been cheated or taken advantage of.

Joan Collins went through emotional turmoil as a result of her date with Maxwell Reed. Some emotions were angry that she was raped, but other emotions were excited that he was a wealthy and famous entertainer. Furthermore, he contacted her on another day and asked for a second date. Although that surprised her, she would have been more upset if he had abandoned her. A female expects a male to form a long-term relationship after having sex, and so her emotions were satisfied that he wanted to remain with her. She did not approve of his behavior, but she approved of his wealth, fame, and desire for a relationship.

Some women would have suppressed their excitement about Reed's wealth and fame and considered the rape as a sign that he was inappropriate for a husband, but Joan Collins was only 17 years old and probably quite ignorant about life and men. She decided to disregard her feelings of disgust and follow her emotional cravings for a wealthy and famous entertainer. She ended up agreeing to marry him.

Collins offered herself to Reed, but I don't think she considered herself to be "offering" herself. I think she considered herself to be "meeting" him or "dating" him. When a female animal is titillated by a male animal, she wants to get close to him and flirt with him, but she doesn't understand why she has those cravings. From the point of view of a female animal, she is simply excited to meet the male. She does not think of herself as offering herself to him, or flirting with him, and she has no idea that her behavior might lead to sex.

The way to understand Joan Collins is to remove the secrecy in life and put video cameras everywhere. If we could watch video of Joan Collins as she lived her life, we would discover that she had met hundreds of men during her life, but she rarely made eye contact with other men, and she rarely showed an interest in any of the men.

However, when we observe how she behaved during her first encounter with Maxwell Reed, we would notice that her behavior changed significantly. She made eye contact with him, and she became more receptive, more excited, and more flirtatious.

If we could analyze what her mind was thinking, we would discover that she knew nothing about his personality, intellectual qualities, or ability to control his temper, arrogance, or alcohol consumption, and she didn't care that she knew nothing. She had no interest in those characteristics. Her emotions were titillated by his wealth, fame, and entertainment abilities.

Her behavior is typical of women. Every woman meets hundreds of men during their life, but they ignore most of us, and they avoid eye contact with most of us. However, when a woman encounters a wealthy and famous entertainer, her behavior changes significantly. She becomes excited, flirtatious, and makes eye contact. She is offering herself to the man, but she does not realize it. She does not understand her emotional feelings, or why her behavior is changing. Just like an ignorant animal, she is shocked to discover that the men wants sex.

Women are equally responsible for date rapes

Judy Huth, one of the women complaining about Bill Cosby, claims that when she was 15 years old, she and her 16-year-old friend met Bill Cosby. A week later the two girls encountered Cosby again, and this time he invited them to go with him to the Playboy mansion. While they were in one of the bedrooms, Cosby pushed Judy Huth into using her hand to sexually stimulate him. Neither of the girls were raped or molested, but she is now filing a lawsuit about it. Assuming Judy is telling the truth, you ought to wonder, why was she willing to go to the Playboy mansion with an adult man she knew nothing about?

Women around the world are regularly seeking out and offering themselves to wealthy and famous men, such as Bill Cosby, Tiger Woods, Elvis Presley. None of the women know how those famous men behave or treat other people, and the women don't care that they know nothing. They are attracted to the wealth and fame, not the man. The women assume that the men will take care of them, and pamper them with gifts, food, and entertainment, and for free.

Some of the famous men are already married, engaged, or in a relationship with some woman, but that doesn't stop women from becoming titillated by them, or struggling to flirt with them and get close to them. Female animals are excited by the dominant male regardless of his relationships with other females.

A woman's emotions will be titillated by a wealthy entertainer regardless of whether he is married, and regardless of whether he has an alcohol problem, bad temper, or a history of raping women. Phil Spector did not have any trouble attracting women, even when he was on trial for murdering a woman.

Patricia Madsen is complaining that Bill Cosby drugged and sexually assaulted her in 1979. She met Bill Cosby while she was working at the Playboy clubs. She did not report the incident because of Bill Cosby's friendship with Hugh Hefner, but years later she agreed to testify at the trial of sportscaster Marv Albert, who another woman was accusing of sexual assault. Madsen claims that Marv Albert bit her in a hotel room in 1993, and that he bit her a second time in another hotel room in 1994, and in another city.

Some of us would assume that a Playboy bunny would be aware that she was associating with men who regard her as a sex toy, and that she would watch out for men who are badly behaved and try to avoid them, but she let Marv Albert bite her twice. She apparently follows the same philosophy as our legal system in which we reprimand or punish a criminal, and then we let him commit another crime, and then another, and another.

Joran van der Sloot is in jail for murdering a woman, and I suspect that he was also involved with kidnapping women for the sex slave trade, but he recently got married, and his wife is pregnant. Is she really interested in him? Or did she become titillated by seeing him on television? A woman who does not think very well, or who does not like to think, might find herself titillated by a man who is famous for something horrible, such as kidnapping women for sale as sex slaves.

In our era, a woman has to push herself into using her intelligence to analyze the man's characteristics and pass judgment on whether it is sensible for her to offer herself to him.

Women have a craving to offer themselves to wealthy and famous men, but this is impractical today because our populations are so large. What is a man supposed to do when thousands of women he knows nothing about are offering themselves to him? He cannot possibly spend months taking each woman out on dates and buying them dinners or gifts. This is especially true for entertainers who travel around the world. A woman is foolish to expect a man who is traveling through her city to form a long-term relationship with her.

Unfortunately, just as everybody who buys a lottery ticket likes to believe that they are going to be the winner, the women who offer themselves to wealthy and famous men like to believe that he will notice her, buy her expensive gifts and dinners, and fall in love with her.

From the point of view of a famous man, the women are just a horde of strangers. He is not likely to be interested in dating any of the women, or forming long-term relationships with them. He is more likely to be interested in having sex with a few, and then moving on with his life. If he is married, he is especially likely to be interested only in sex.

Therefore, the famous men are likely to find a way to bypass the months of dating and get directly to the sex. Unfortunately, that is not easy because women have strong inhibitions about having casual sex. Trying to have casual sex with a woman is like trying to pull a ball out of the mouth of a dog that has inhibitions about letting it go. So how can a man skip the dating and get to the sex?

Some men solve this problem by looking for women who are willing to become mistresses. Those mistresses are willing to offer sex, so they don't complain about being raped. However, some men prefer to incapacitate a woman with alcohol or other drugs, and then take advantage of her when she cannot think properly. Other men don't bother to use drugs; they just rape the woman.

Although we could say that date rape occurs with animals, and it probably occurred with prehistoric humans, our technology makes it a more significant problem today. For example, technology allows us to produce a variety of drugs and alcoholic beverages to incapacitate the women. For another example, the secrecy that we provide people allows men to isolate women, such as by taking them to their apartment, or the bedroom of a Playboy mansion, where they will be alone with her. During prehistoric times, the women tended to remain with other women and children, and there were no walls to separate people. The lack of secrecy made it difficult for a man to isolate a woman, thereby making it difficult to rape a woman without other people knowing about it.

If Joan Collins had agreed to go on a date with Maxwell Reed only in a public area, then she would not have been raped. However, she agreed to meet him at his apartment. Or, if she had had a chaperone, she would not have been raped.

We cannot stop date rape simply by complaining about the men because it is not due entirely to men. It is due to human nature. The human race needs to evolve more appropriate emotional characteristics, and until that happens, we have to face the fact that men have a natural tendency to aggressively pursue women, and women have a natural tendency to become receptive and flirtatious with wealthy and famous entertainers.

It is unacceptable for men to rape or drug women, but it is also unacceptable for women today to offer themselves to wealthy and famous men, especially married men. The women might respond that they are "meeting" the men, not "offering themselves," but this modern era requires men and women to have a better understanding of themselves and a lot more responsibility for their behavior.

These women are offering themselves sexually to Elvis Presley, regardless of what they think they are doing.

The women who chase after wealthy and famous men are not interested in "meeting" the men. The women have no concern for how the man lives, behaves, or treats other people. Instead, they are attracted to his wealth, fame, and entertainment abilities. They are behaving like stupid monkeys.

Instead of blaming men for date rape, we should blame both men and women. Relationships between men and women will improve when both men and women push themselves into behaving more like an intelligent human and less like a stupid animal. Women are not going to form sensible relationships when they focus on a man's wealth, fame, and entertainment abilities and ignore his behavior, treatment of other people, criminal history, value to society, and ability to handle food, alcohol, gambling, and drugs.

It was acceptable for prehistoric women to offer themselves to the dominant men, but it is unrealistic for women to do this today. Men were not designed to resist women. We were designed to have sex with as many women as possible. In prehistoric times, it was possible for a dominant male to have sex with the few women in his tribe, but wealthy and famous men today cannot possibly deal with thousands of women.

Imagine if your daughter had been date-raped

If you think I am wrong for saying that women are equally responsible for date rape, or that I am trying to defend the men who rape women, consider the following situation. Imagine that you have a 15-year-old daughter. Imagine that Maxwell Reed is visiting your city, and your daughter is excited to meet him, so she joins the crowd of hysterical women screaming for his autograph. He invites her to his apartment for a date, and she agrees to meet him there by herself. When she comes home, you discover that she has been drugged and raped. Your reaction would likely be to blame Maxwell Reed, not your daughter.

Now imagine that a week later Roman Polanski is passing through your town, and your daughter chases after him for his autograph. He offers to help her become a Hollywood actress, and he invites her to his home, and she agrees to go there by herself. When she comes home, you discover that she is suffering from liver damage because he gave her too much of some drug, and he also raped and sodomized her. You might blame Polanski.

Now imagine that a famous sportscaster is visiting your city for a sports event, and your daughter chases after him and agrees to go up to his hotel room. When she comes home, you discover she has been bitten and sexually abused. Your daughter forgives him, and the next day she once again goes to his hotel room, and gets bitten a second time.

How many times would your daughter have to be abused by the men that she was choosing to get involved with before you told her that she is partly responsible for the rapes? And how many times would she have to be abused before you decided to take some responsibility for not educating your daughter about these issues and giving her some sensible advice, such as telling her to never expect rich and famous men to help her with her Hollywood career, or entertain her with free dinners or gifts?

We prefer to blame other people

Animals are arrogant and selfish, so we have a natural tendency to avoid taking responsibility for our problems and bad behavior, and looking for some way to blame our problems on somebody else, or on some mysterious force. I've given examples in other documents, such as how American society blames foreign nations for our drug problems. Most Americans refuse to accept the fact that each of us is responsible for our drug use. Nations also regularly accuse one another of causing economic problems. Nobody tells anybody else to stop this nonsense and start taking responsibility for themselves.

Some Americans are trying to blame fast food restaurants for their obesity. Republicans blame Democrats for the incompetence and corruption of the government, and Democrats blame Republicans. None of the voters will accept the possibility that they are incompetent voters who are partly to blame for the crummy government. We avoid looking critically at ourselves.

No society promotes the philosophy that every citizen should be responsible for their behavior, and the reason is because our emotions are not attracted to that philosophy. We prefer the philosophy that we are perfect, and all of our problems are due to somebody else. Each of us likes to think that we are the standard to judge other humans, and that everybody else is inferior to us. We are always looking for opportunities to boast about ourselves, such as showing off our awards, college diplomas, or material wealth, and we are always looking for opportunities to criticize other people so that we can feel better about ourselves.

We are not going to reduce the problems in our relationships when we blame somebody else because most of the problems are due to the behavior of all people involved. We need to analyze our problems and learn from them, rather than blame somebody for them.

We should experiment with changes to society

Reducing the problems in male-female relationships is going to require more than telling men and women to behave better. We should also experiment with changes to society to reduce the likelihood that women will offer themselves to famous men, and to reduce the opportunities for men to rape women.

For example, by making people more equal, there won't be any wealthy or famous men. Elvis Presley would just be another man living in the same type of home as everybody else, eating in the same restaurants as the rest of us, and wearing the same type of clothing. There would be nothing special about him. Al Gore and the other Nobel Prize winning scientists would also be living in the same type of homes as the rest of us. In that type of society, women would have a significantly reduced attraction to Elvis Presley and Al Gore.

Every society will always have some type of social hierarchy, and there will always be men at the top, and women will have a greater attraction to those important men than the others, but we don't have to allow the hierarchy to have the extreme difference between levels as we have in the world today. This will reduce the problem of women becoming excessively stimulated by the wealthy and famous entertainers. I think this will provide a more pleasant and appropriate social environment for both men and women.

Another change that we should experiment with is educating boys and girls about these issues. For example, young girls should be taught that they should flirt with boys only in public areas, and only if there are other people in the area. The girls should be told not to allow boys to lure them to some secluded location.

A boy might claim that he needs privacy when he is talking to a girl, but what is he going to say or do that he is afraid to let other people know about? The people who want privacy or secrecy are usually the people who are ashamed or embarrassed of what they want to do or say, and we should not feel sorry for those people or give them privacy or secrecy.

We should discourage abusive relationships

Some of the women who chase after wealthy and famous men are doing so because they hope that the famous man will help them with their career, and some women hope that by getting to know a famous man, they will get to know other famous men, and eventually find a famous man to marry. These women have no romantic interest in the man that they are chasing after. They have no interest in becoming his friend, either, or doing anything for him. Rather, they see him as a tool, or as an opportunity, to help themselves.

I suspect that people have been forming these selfish relationships even when our ancestors were more like monkeys than humans. However, our technology makes the problem much more significant today. In a primitive tribe, there is not much of a difference between the people, so there is not much benefit to becoming friends with the dominant male or female. However, today there are phenomenal differences in our material wealth and social status. As a result, there is a significant advantage to becoming friends with a wealthy and famous person. This is causing many people to seek out and form relationships with the wealthy and famous people.

There are also women who chase after men for more diabolical purposes, such as setting them up for blackmail. Monica Lewinsky seemed to be pursuing President Clinton in order to lure him into doing something sexual that The Chosen People could blackmail him for, but she was treated by many people as an innocent young girl who was a victim of President Clinton. She was not regarded as an adult member of a Jewish crime network. Anna Chapman was also struggling to form relationships with men so that she could use them to acquire information for either the Russian government or the Chosen People.

It seems that everybody who becomes wealthy or famous finds himself regularly pursued by both men and women who want to become his friend, but only to use him for something. We currently do nothing about this problem, but ideally we would experiment with solutions to reduce them. We do not benefit from these types of relationships. One method to reduce this problem is to let society provide everybody with the basic necessities for free and make people more equal. That would significantly reduce the advantage of becoming friends with people who are high in the social hierarchy, which in turn would reduce the number of diabolical and parasitic people from pursuing the famous people, which would make the lives of the famous people more pleasant.

We should discourage begging, charity, and donations

Animals do not have any inhibitions about begging for food, or trying to manipulate us into giving them what they want. Begging and manipulation is so natural to us that we promote this behavior rather than try to suppress it or be ashamed of it. Every society promotes the philosophy that begging is an acceptable method of raising money. Churches, charities, nonprofit organizations, think tanks, and individual people are regularly begging for donations of money, toys, food, and other items.

Rather than be embarrassed by this crude behavior, and rather than suppress it, every society promotes the attitude that the people who donate money or services are generous, loving, wonderful people. This is encouraging more begging and donating.

The wealthy and famous entertainers also promote the concept of donating money to charities. This implies that they enjoy giving money to good causes, and that they love to help people. This encourages people to believe that wealthy and famous celebrities might give them money for their good cause, or do something to help them with their career. A society is hurting itself when it promotes this philosophy because it encourages people to look for handouts and free services.

I think we will create a more pleasant social environment when we forbid all types of handouts, donations, inheritances, and charities. If people want to contribute something, they should contribute to society, such as assisting with the city festivals, museums, recreational activities, or the maintenance of the city gardens. No individual person or organization should be allowed to ask for or accept any type of free services, donations, or handouts. If any organization is doing something that is worthy of a donation, then society should deal with it. When we allow individuals and organizations to beg for donations, we are setting ourselves up for abuse and bad attitudes.

We also encourage people to manipulate one another by pouting, or by acting "cute". When young children do this, many women consider the behavior to be adorable, and they will give the child whatever he wants.

Some adult women pout or act cute when they want a man to buy them an expensive gift, or take them to an expensive music concert. Men do not reprimand women for trying to manipulate them. Rather, men tend to consider the woman to be adorable, and they are happy to give the woman what she wants.

I think we will create a more pleasant society when we consider pouting and manipulation to be crude and animal-like.

We should eliminate the custom of giving gifts

I think we should also stop the custom of giving gifts. Gifts were valuable during prehistoric times, but today we produce excessive quantities of gifts. Our giftgiving customs are causing awkwardness, wasting resources, and increasing the problem of garbage.

A woman will build up pleasant memories of a man when he does something with her that she enjoys.

It is beneficial for men to give women intangible gifts, such as arranging a picnic with their friends, taking her to a music concert, or doing something with the woman that she enjoys, but I think we should stop the practice of giving material items as gifts. I think it would be better if society provided everybody with their basic necessities, and nobody expected anybody else to give him material items.

When men do something with women, the two of them spend time together, and that causes them to create memories of one another. When they get older, those pleasant memories will make their life seem more worthwhile, and whenever they visit one of the places that they spent time together at, they will be reminded of those pleasant memories. By comparison, when people get gifts, they get some momentary titillation, but there is not much long-term benefit.

In a City of Castles, it will be easy for men and women to do things together and accumulate pleasant memories because everybody will be surrounded by parks, gardens, bicycle paths, swimming areas, museums, music concerts, city festivals, and social clubs. They don't have to travel long distances, or spend any money. And in a city without crime, they can do things together during the evenings without fear.

I think we will create a more pleasant social environment when there is no giftgiving of any type, not even during holiday celebrations. We enjoy giving and receiving gifts, but our manufacturing technology makes gifts a wasteful and awkward custom.

Do something for society rather than donate something

Instead of donating money, food, gifts, or services to people or organizations, the people who enjoy doing something for other people should offer their services to society. I've mentioned some examples in previous documents, such as participating in the development or supervision of a city festival, or offering to take a group of people on a trip to a lake to swim or snorkel, or offering to show a group of people how to use a drone with a camera to observe some wild animals, or offering to give people a tour of a factory.

We get a bit of titillation when we donate money because it makes us feel as if we are doing something useful, but we will get more satisfaction from life when we participate in society and do something that people truly benefit from. The people we help will also be more appreciative than if we give them a silly gift that they soon discard in the trash.

In our cities today, we don't have any desire to do anything with the people we live with, but if we create cities in which we control immigration and evict the misfits, we will enjoy the people we live with, and we will trust them. We will enjoy getting together with them and doing things together.

When friends get together, they do things together. They don't merely give one another silly gifts. We can apply this philosophy to an entire city - if we want to.

The glowing rocks were arranged on the bicycle path to resemble van Gogh's Starry Night painting.

Contrary to what your emotions imply, you will enjoy life more when you do something rather than when you receive a gift or pampering. When the people in a city follow the philosophy of getting together and doing something, they will create lots of projects that people can participate in on a part-time and temporary basis, such as making and placing decorative ceramic tiles along the foot paths; creating and maintaining bonsai plants for restaurants; creating an educational display for schools and museums to show the history of telephone development through the ages; and painting murals on the walls of the public bathrooms.

When a city offers lots of projects for people to participate in, and when you choose to participate in some of them, you will get more satisfaction from your life and the city, even if your participation is only a few hours each year. For example, in Holland, some people created a bicycle path that glows at night. The people who helped with that project will get more satisfaction from that work than if they had given somebody a gift. When you do something useful, you create pleasant memories that last a lifetime, and you can enjoy what you have done. You will also be able to enjoy the fact that other people appreciate your work.

We don't benefit from mistresses

There has probably been some type of prostitution for millions of years, but it is more extreme today. There are also lots of homosexual prostitutes today. In Thailand, some teenage boys castrate themselves and offer themselves as prostitutes. I doubt if any prehistoric boy did such a thing.

Ideally, men and women would have such pleasant and stable relationships that none of the men have a desire to go to a prostitute. However, that ideal situation may not occur for centuries. It may require hundreds of generations for men and women to evolve into a creature that can form such stable relationships. Until then, we might create a better social environment if we accepted prostitution. We could let it occur in certain sections of the city rather than waste our time and resources trying to stop it. However, I don't think any society benefits from mistresses.

Some of Cosby's rape victims seem to fit into the "mistress" category. For example, Frank Scotti, a man who is helping to expose Bill Cosby, says that he worked for Bill Cosby for many years, and one of his jobs was to send money from Bill Cosby to the women that he had sex with. This article says that he was providing the women with apartments and giving them up to $2000 a month.

It is possible that some of those women were date rape victims who decided not to complain about the rape because they found the money to be so attractive. In that case, the women could be described as being bribed into becoming a mistress. Other women may have accepted the money only because they were afraid to complain about a famous man. Those women would have become mistresses as a result of fear and intimidation.

Regardless of what type of relationship Cosby was having with his mistresses, I don't think mistresses are beneficial for either men or women. It can also result in blackmail. For example, one of the women that Cosby had sex with got pregnant, and when the child became older, she threatened to expose Bill Cosby's sexual affairs if he did not give her $40 million. Cosby is not the only man to have been blackmailed by a woman that he had sex with, or by the child of that woman.

Incidentally, I suspect that Frank Scotti is one of the people who is helping The Tribe to expose Bill Cosby. I suspect that Scotti was secretly keeping records of everything that he did for Cosby, and now The Chosen People are using those records to attack Cosby.

How honest are the Cosby rape victims?

In this news report, Therese Seregnese claims that Cosby gave her two pills and a glass of water, and she is quoted as saying that she knew the pills were Quaaludes: "He identified what they were; that's how I knew."

However, in this news report, she is quoted as saying that she did not know what the pills were:
"I took them, didn't know what they were didn't even ask. I just was intimidated I guess and I took them."

Such an amazing discrepancy in what Therese Seregnese said about the pills should lead you to a multiple-choice question, such as,
a) Did the journalists make a mistake in reporting what she said?
b) Is her memory so faulty that every time she recalls the rape story it comes out differently?
c) Is she lying, and having trouble remembering her earlier lies?

Furthermore, my impression is that she was benefiting from her "rape", not suffering from it. For example, she lived in Cosby's penthouse for weeks. That sounds like a mistress, not a rape victim. Furthermore, Cosby promised to give her $500 if she went to school and earned good grades. (In the 1970s, $500 was a lot of money.) After she attended nursing school, Cosby gave her $10,000 instead of $500. How often do rape victims get $10,000 from their rapist for going to nursing school? That sounds like a mistress who was benefiting from the relationship, and that Cosby was encouraging her to learn a skill and do something useful with her life rather than spend her entire life as a mistress or prostitute.

Why were the women willing to take Quaaludes?

I have not bothered to look through all of the reports about Cosby, but I have not yet seen a sensible explanation for why Cosby was offering Quaaludes to the women, or where he got the Quaaludes, or why were the women willing to take them. If a man handed you two Quaaludes, would you casually pick them up and swallow them?

I looked on the Internet to figure out what Quaaludes were, and I discovered that during the 1970s, when these "rapes" were occurring, Quaaludes were a recreational drug for some people. According to the Wikipedia, there were so many people using this drug that there was a bar in New York City that catered to customers who were using it.

If we could remove the secrecy in the entertainment business, we might find that a lot of people were using Quaaludes at that time, in which case Cosby and the women may have been so familiar with them that they didn't think anything strange about taking them.

In addition to drugs becoming popular in the 1960s and 1970s, Sweden had become the sex capital of the world, and a lot of people were promoting the concept of free love, free sex, and doing whatever you please. Hugh Hefner was becoming popular and encouraging sex, also. A lot of people besides Bill Cosby were experimenting with drugs, casual sex, wife swapping, and communes. Some of the parents of the children that I went to school with got involved with the free sex and free love concept; it was not restricted to the entertainers.

If we were to remove the secrecy in the entertainment business, we might find that a lot of people besides Bill Cosby were involved with casual sex and wife swapping during the 1970s.

Maxwell Reed gave Joan Collins some type of drug in 1952, but what was it? And where did he get it? And where did he get the idea to do it? If we could remove the secrecy in the entertainment business in the 1950s, we might find that many men besides Reed were using drugs on women - and children - long before the 1950s. We might find that these drugs were easily available to people in the entertainment business.

Carla Ferrigno was kissed, not "raped"

Among the rape accusations against Bill Cosby is Carla Ferrigno's complaint that Bill Cosby tried to "forcibly" kiss her. There are millions of men around the world trying to kiss women, and millions of women try to kiss children. If Bill Cosby is going to be publicly humiliated for this, why not humiliate all of the other millions of people who do it?

I agree with women that it is wrong for men to grab at them, kiss them, brush up against them, and make lewd remarks, but the journalists and Carla Ferrigno are deliberately exaggerating this incident, further suggesting that this is a planned and coordinated attack against Cosby, not a serious complaint against him.

At the beginning of this article I pointed out that we have some "kissing customs", and I suspect that a lot of women have been "forcibly kissed" as a result of those customs. Why don't we ridicule the people who practice or promote those customs?

In a previous document, I pointed out that a woman tried to kiss a dog on television, and the dog bit her lips. Why don't we publicly humiliate people who "forcibly" kiss dogs? Is it really sensible to encourage people to kiss dogs? And on their lips?

Anybody who complains about Cosby kissing women ought to also complain about the men who kiss women in even more inappropriate situations, as Helio Castroneves did.

A few years ago, on the television show Dancing with the Stars, one of the men, Helio Castroneves, kissed Julianne Hough at the end of their dance. She later said that the kiss was not part of the dance. He kissed her because he wanted to. However, as far as I know, nobody criticized him.

I would say that Helio's kissing of Julianne was more inappropriate than Cosby's kissing of Carla Ferrigno. The reason is because Julianne Hough was in the role of a teacher, and Helio was in the role of a student. I would say a student kissing his teacher, or vice versa, is more inappropriate than what Cosby is accused of doing with Ferrigno.

If Julianne had been chasing after Helio and expecting him to give her free gifts or help her with her acting career, then I would say she is partly to blame for the kiss, but she never behaved like the women who chased after Cosby.

Since journalists regularly lie to us, we don't know exactly why Ferrigno and Cosby were close enough to kiss each other, or what Cosby did to her. This article, for example, claims that this incident occurred at a "party" when Cosby's wife wasn't around. But this report describes the situation as taking place in Bill Cosby's home, and that the only people in the home were Carla, her date, Bill Cosby, and Bill's wife, Camille. Is that a "party"?

What was she doing in Bill Cosby's home? She claims that a man that she had recently met at an airport and dated one time had asked if she would like to meet Cosby, and so the two of them went to Cosby's home. They all went to watch a movie, and then went back to Cosby's home, and after a while her date and Camille left the room, and she was alone with Bill. Why would her date and Camille leave the room? Where did they go, and why? It seems that Carla was invited for some type of date-swap party, but she was too naive to realize it.

Carla Ferrigno was working as a Playboy bunny at the time, and I suspect that the man who invited her to Cosby's home had assumed that a Playboy bunny was more sexually active than other women, and that she would be a willing participant in their sexual activities.

However, Ferrigno did not seem interested in sex. I get the impression that Ferrigno was interested in meeting Cosby only because he was rich and famous. She may have been hoping that Cosby would help her with her career, or that by getting to know him, she would be able to meet other rich and famous men that she could marry. She may have also been excited at the thought of getting yet another free meal and another night of free entertainment.

If Ferrigno had become a willing participant in the sex, Cosby would have undoubtedly done something in return for her, such as help her with her career or give her a lot of money, as he did with other women, but Ferrigno pushed him away when he kissed her, and so he gave up, and she got nothing. He did not chase after her or rape her.

After the incident with Cosby did not work out as she hoped, she continued her quest for a wealthy and famous man, and she eventually found and married one; namely, Lou Ferrigno. Is it a coincidence that she married him? I don't think so.

I think that if we had complete video surveillance of the planet and could watch her as she goes through life, we would find her ignoring almost every man around her, except for the extremely wealthy and famous entertainers. I think she ignored dozens of men who would have made a nice husband for her, but she ignored them because she had abnormally intense cravings for a wealthy and famous entertainer.

Carla Ferrigno complains that Bill Cosby's behavior is undesirable, but is a woman who chases after wealthy and famous entertainers really a better person? If your daughter were to turn away every man that was interested in her and chase after the wealthy and famous entertainers, would you be proud of her?

Why would somebody participate in an attack on Cosby?

One of the ways you can determine that virtually all of the "truth sites" on the Internet are controlled opposition is because they provide only some truth, and ignore others. For example, as I mentioned many years ago, David Duke and the other white supremacists constantly complain about Israel and Jews, but they have been struggling for years to ignore the evidence that Israel demolished the World Trade Center buildings with explosives, and they defend the Apollo moon landing rather than expose the evidence that it was a fraud.

If you can understand this concept, then consider how it applies to the Cosby rape issue. Many women are coming forward to complain about Bill Cosby's terrible behavior, but why are they so interested in exposing Bill Cosby but nobody else? Why are they silent about the mysterious death of Robin Williams, Whitney Houston, and Michael Jackson? Why are they silent about all the accusations of pedophilia and homosexual rape? Why are they silent about all of the rumors that people in Hollywood are frequently giving sexual favors in return for jobs and movie roles? Why are they only willing to expose Bill Cosby?

Furthermore, if these people are truly interested in exposing bad behavior, why don't they provide some details about Corey Feldman's accusation that pedophilia is the number one problem in Hollywood? Why don't they expose some of the hidden messages in Katy Perry's California Gurls video? Why don't they expose the evidence that Israel is responsible for the 9/11 attack, and that Jews are lying about the Holocaust? Why are they ignoring the evidence that Jews sunk the Titanic, and that Israel attacked the USS Liberty in an attempt to start a war between America and Egypt?

The Cosby victims may respond that they can only expose the crimes that they have personal experience with, but I would not believe that excuse. I live about 100 miles away from Hollywood, and many people around here know people who got jobs in Hollywood. Although they had some of the lowest level jobs available, and they never saw such crimes as pedophilia or murder, they saw that cocaine and other drugs were about as common as beer is at a football game. How could the Cosby victims spend so much time with people higher up in the Hollywood hierarchy without ever seeing bad behavior?

Carla Ferrigno worked as a Playboy bunny. Was Cosby's "forceful kiss" the worst behavior she has ever seen from men? Are we to believe that a Playboy bunny never experienced anything worse than that? Is that the only behavior that she considers worthy of publicly complaining about?

Journalists imply that these women are finally willing to complain about Cosby because, after the first woman complained, other women were inspired to find the courage to complain. However, if exposing Cosby is helping women find the courage to complain, why doesn't it encourage both men and women to complain about other men and other crimes? Why is it encouraging only Bill Cosby's victims to complain?

I suspect that The Chosen People contacted these women and encouraged them to come forward. Actually, I wonder if the Jews did more than encourage them. Were some of the women bribed to do this? I also wonder if some women were threatened to help expose Cosby or be exposed for something that they did. The Jews seem to spend a lot of time and effort collecting information about other people that they can use for blackmail, and so the Jews may have a lot of information that is embarrassing to those women.

Therese Seregnese seems to have been a mistress of Bill Cosby for a while, and that makes me wonder, was she a mistress for other men, also? How many men? Who were those other men? Did she have any children from any of those men? Did she pick up any diseases from them?

Do the Jews have video recordings of some of those women offering sex in return for a role in a Hollywood movie or TV show? Were any of the women involved with even worse crimes, such as murder?

A lot of women have been irritated by men who tried to kiss them, but how many of those women would be willing to make a public complaint about those men? Why would Carla Ferrigno be willing to complain about a "forcible kiss"?

Women frequently try to manipulate men into purchasing expensive gifts for them, or taking them to expensive restaurants, or taking them to expensive music concerts. What would you think if a group of men came out to condemn a woman for trying to manipulate them into purchasing expensive gifts for her? What would be the point of condemning a woman for doing something that millions of other women are doing on a regular basis? And what would be the point of condemning one woman for such behavior when there are millions of other women behaving in an even worse manner?

The women who are coming forward to publicly complain about Bill Cosby have motives for doing so. Don't believe them if they claim that they are honest angels who are simply trying to expose bad behavior for the good of the human race. If they were truly interested in exposing bad behavior, they would not stop with Bill Cosby. They have certainly seen a lot of bad behavior from both men and women during their lives. There is a reason that they are silent about all of the badly behaved people except for Bill Cosby. There is a reason they are joining in on this attack of Cosby. What is that reason?

In September 2014, the actress Emma Watson, who was recently appointed Goodwill Ambassador for UN Women, gave a short speech to the United Nations to promote feminism. I would describe it as a vague speech of no value, but she mentioned an issue that is important for us to deal with in this modern world. Specifically, she said, "I think it is right I am paid the same as my male counterparts."

I agree that female employees are often paid less than male employees who do the exact same job and at the same level of performance, but unlike the feminists, who blame this discrepancy on sexism, I would say that it is because men want to pamper women.

Men pay women less because they want to pamper their wives

It might help you to understand this issue if you observe the behavior of animals, such as the lives of falcons and eagles. The female birds spend most of their adult life sitting on their nest and taking care of their babies. The male birds spend each day hunting. It is important to note that none of the male birds force the females to sit on a nest. The females do this because they want to. The females evolved a desire to remain on the nest and raise babies, and the males evolved a desire to hunt for food.

The males spend every day hunting and bringing animals to the females. When the males are hunting, they are doing so only for themselves and their family. They do not share animals with the other males. Rather, they are competing with the other males.

If a male falcon is doing an excellent job of catching animals, and if another male falcon is having trouble, the successful male will not feel sorry for the less talented male. The successful male will continue to compete with the less talented male, even if it results in the babies of the unsuccessful falcon dying of starvation. The male animals do not help one another or feel sorry for one another.

When a female falcon is hungry as a result of the male not finding enough food, she will leave the nest and go hunting. None of the male falcons will stop her from hunting, but they don't help her, either. Instead, she ends up competing for food just like all of the males are competing with one another.

If birds were capable of speaking to us, a female falcon who went hunting would likely whine about the treatment she was receiving from the male falcons. She would complain that none of the males were helping her. She would have sad stories to tell, such as the time when she observed an animal on the ground and was trying to catch it when a male falcon flew into the area, saw the animal, and took it before she could get it.

She would probably be confused by this behavior because the normal situation for a male is to catch food for the female. She expected the males to provide her with food and pampering, but she found herself in competition with them.

It is possible that some (or all) birds are so stupid that if a female ended up hunting in the same area as her mate, he would compete with her rather than work with her.

The important point to note about the falcons and eagles is that when the female is on her nest, she is fed and pampered by her mate, but if a female were to go out and hunt, she would find herself in a competitive battle with the other males. She would not be pampered when she is hunting. She would have to struggle for food just as the males do.

Now consider humans. Thousands of years ago the men went hunting every day, and the women stayed home with the children. This division of labor was not due to sexism. Rather, women evolved a desire to stay home with the children and other women, and men evolved a desire to hunt for food and defend their territory.

If an unusually masculine woman wanted to join the men in the hunting, the men would have allowed her to do so. The reason I say this is because all throughout history we can find women involved with men's activities, including the fighting of wars. Mothers and fathers often discouraged their own daughters from getting involved with male activities, but all throughout history our ancestors gave one another a lot more freedom than we give one another today.

The prehistoric men spent each day just like the male falcons; specifically, competing with all of the other men to find food. Unlike birds, human men often work in teams while hunting, but they would not divide the food evenly. The men who were better at hunting would be at the top of the social hierarchy, and they would get the larger and better pieces of meat.

If any woman wanted to join the men in their hunting, the other men would have allowed her to do so, but she would have found herself competing with all of the other men. The men would not give her any special treatment. Each man would be focused on finding food for his particular family; none of the men would be interested in pampering somebody else's wife or daughter.

The women who stayed at home were pampered and cared for by their husbands. From the point of view of those particular women, men were faithful slaves who worked hard to provide the women and children with food, tools, furs, and protection. However, the women who joined the men during hunting or fighting could develop a very different view of men. Those women would find themselves competing with men rather than being pampered and protected by the men. Those women could easily develop the attitude that men are selfish, sexist creatures who don't care about women.

Male animals are not "sexist" creatures. Male animals are actually devoted to the females. The males spend their entire adult lives struggling to provide the females with food and protection. That is not "sexism". That is a "devotion" to females that is so extreme that the males could be described as "slaves" of the females.

The reason that female employees tend to be paid less than male employees is for the same reason that assembly-line workers are paid less than managers. Specifically, every man is in competition with the other men to provide his family with food and material wealth, and to rise to the top of the social hierarchy. The men have no interest in helping other men. They are trying to help themselves. They are trying to collect money so that they can give it to their wives and children, and to show off to the other men. They are trying to pamper their wives, not abuse their wives.

The free enterprise system makes the situation worse by encouraging the men to focus on money with no concern for society. The free enterprise system encourages us to think of consumers as profit opportunities rather than as friends, and to consider competing businesses as enemies rather than as friends. The end result of this focus on profit is that all of the men in a free enterprise system are struggling to make as much money for themselves as possible, and trying to pay everybody else as little as possible. The free enterprise system encourages crude, animal-like behavior.

Women and children are paid less than men in a free enterprise system simply because women are naturally more submissive, and that allows employers to get away with paying them less. There are some jobs that women do better than men, and if we were to pay employees according to their performance, then women in those particular jobs would be paid more than the men who are doing the same job.

The free enterprise system is a battle zone where men are competing for money. The men are not helping one another. If a woman wants to join the men in this battle for money, she is free to do so, but she will not be given any special treatment. She will be on her own to fight with the other men for money.

In a competitive battle, the losers are the submissive people and the people who are not very good at fighting. Competitive battles favor the best fighters. Women are not very good at fighting, and neither are children or stupid men. As a result, women, children, and stupid men tend to suffer in a free enterprise system.

Women are as selfish and inconsiderate as men

If you watched one of the documentaries about the falcons or eagles, then you might have noticed that the male birds never get any chance to relax or take a vacation. As soon as he arrives at the nest with food, the female takes the food and expects him to resume hunting. She has no desire to spend any time with him, let him relax, or appreciate what he is doing for her. She does not provide him with any privileges to visit with the children, either. He is nothing but a slave as far as she is concerned. All she wants him for is food, and she is never satisfied. He has never done enough work for her. She is a dictator.

Humans are just intelligent versions of birds. Women put pressure on men to make as much money as possible. The women want more clothing, larger houses, more furniture, more jewelry, and more food. They want money, and they don't care how their husband makes it.

Women also show no concern for whether the female employees are being paid less. How many women have told their husbands, "Take this money back and divide it between the women you work with so that they can make more money. We should not be so greedy."

No female falcon has ever told her mate to share the food with some of the other females. No female animal cares if another female is starving to death.

Women complain that men do not pay women as much as they pay men, but if women were truly better than men, then women would put pressure on their husbands to reduce their salary and increase the salary of women.

Emma Watson is a good example of this situation. She made a tremendous amount of money as an actress. This website estimates her value at $60 million. It is important to note that Emma Watson did not make that money by herself. There were thousands of people directly or indirectly involved with helping her become rich. For example, there were thousands of men and women involved in producing and distributing the movies, and there were thousands of men and women involved in building and maintaining the movie theaters, and there were thousands of people working in the factories to make the seats, movie projectors, and other items in the theaters. There were also thousands of people producing and distributing electricity for the movie theaters. Without all of those people, Emma Watson would have no money at all.

The wonderful aspects of modern society require teamwork, and it would make sense for us to share in the benefits, but human nature does not want to share. Each of us wants to take as much as possible, and with no concern for anybody else.

Emma Watson was just one of thousands of people involved in the Harry Potter movies, but the free enterprise system does not require people to share the profits. Instead, it allows people to fight for money, and the end result is that the directors, actors, actresses, and certain other people grab a phenomenal amount of that money, and everybody else gets only a small amount.

If humans were truly the wonderful creatures that religious fanatics like to believe, then we would enjoy being equal to one another and sharing the benefits of modern society. Unfortunately, humans are monkeys, and we each believe that we are worth more than other people. Some people believe they are worth thousands of times more than other people.

Emma Watson and the other wealthy feminists are hypocrites. They are not leaders who can provide us with sensible guidance or intelligent analyses.

Emma Watson has no desire to share any of her phenomenal wealth with the women that she claims are being underpaid. She is a hypocrite, just like Michael Moore, and all of the other men and women who are extremely wealthy while complaining that other people are greedy. Why don't those wealthy people practice what they preach and share their wealth? Why do they tell everybody else to share wealth?

For another example of the hypocrisy, the Fawcett Society is a British feminist organization that was recently criticized as hypocritical for producing T-shirts that were made by women on the island of Mauritius who were paid less than the average wage on the island, and 16 women had to share each dormitory room.

Why don't any of the Fawcett Society feminists demand that the women producing those shirts be paid a reasonable amount of money? The reason is because women are no better than men. Both men and women are selfish monkeys. The Fawcett Society feminists devised a variety of excuses for refusing to increase the wages of those working women just as male businessmen devise excuses for the low wages of female employees. Emma Watson would also come up with some idiotic excuses if somebody asks her why she doesn't share some of her phenomenal wealth with the working women who helped make her rich.

There are lots of wealthy female entertainers, business executives, and government officials. Some of those women whine that men are not paying female employees enough money, but none of those women offer to reduce their salary and increase the salaries of women. They are all hypocrites.

Every boy grows up around girls who fantasize about marrying a wealthy man, and who fantasize about being given expensive dinners, diamond rings, gold jewelry, big houses, and fur coats. Every boy quickly learns that if he wants to attract a woman, he needs to get a lot of money. The boys also learn that women don't care whether a man's job has any value to society; all the women care about is his quantity of money. Women also don't care if a man is making money at the expense of some woman or child. Women are not impressed by men who are responsible, who treat other people with decency, who can control their temper, or who contribute something of value to society. Women are impressed only by big houses, expensive jewelry, expensive food, and entertainment.

Women are part of the reason that female employees are paid less than male employees. The reason is simply because women are behaving like stupid, dictatorial falcons who are putting endless pressure on men to make more money, and with no regards to how they make it. Women do not want "average" or "below average" incomes. Women are attracted to men who are at the top of the hierarchy. Unfortunately, it is not possible for everybody to be above-average.

It is possible to create a society in which everybody has virtually the same income, but it is not possible for everybody to be above average. In order for some women to have above-average material wealth, other women must have less than average levels.

Women are putting pressure on men to make above average incomes, but this requires that the men take money from somebody else. The easiest people to take money from are the submissive and stupid people. As a result, children, women, and stupid men are paid less than the other men.

If women were truly more advanced than monkeys, then they would analyze a man's value to society and prefer the men who were contributing the most and behaving in the best manner. This would have a dramatic effect on society, and on the future generations. The men who were the most valuable to society would have the easiest time attracting women, and so they would be the most successful in reproduction, thereby improving the human race with every generation. Furthermore, since these men would be contributing to society rather than simply making money, life would be improving for everybody as a result of their actions.

Feminists are not going to improve life for women or reduce income disparity by exploiting poor women in foreign countries to make T-shirts, or by having extremely wealthy actresses complain about men at the United Nations.

Why was Emma Watson chosen to be a leader?

Why was Emma Watson chosen to be the Goodwill Ambassador for UN Women? Why was she chosen to give a speech to the United Nations? What has she done to qualify for such an influential position?

Emma Watson was not chosen to speak to the United Nations because she had previously impressed people with her intelligent analyses of life's problems, or because of her brilliant suggestions on how to improve the world, or because she has shown impressive leadership abilities.

Rather, she was chosen simply because she was famous. The people who chose her assumed that she will become an excellent Pied Piper who will lead the mindless people along the vague feminist path. She was chosen to manipulate the horde of people who can't think very well, or who don't want to think.

The feminists are not the only people to use celebrities as pied pipers. Businesses regularly use celebrities to sell products, and political candidates use them to manipulate voters.

We are not going to improve our world when the people in influential positions are trying to manipulate us with "celebrities". We need leaders who can provide us with intelligent analyses, conduct experiments to improve our world, and comfort the people who are frightened of changes and experiments. We need leaders who can provide us with guidance and advice.

We must do something in order to improve the world!

Nothing will improve if we continue doing nothing, or if we continue whining about problems. We must push ourselves into experimenting with our economic system, social customs, courtship activities, New Year's activities, and other culture. We must actually do something. Are you capable of exerting enough self-control to experiment with a better society? If so, then find some people to join us and let's start the process already!