BRILLIANT MEN ALWAYS BETRAY THEIR WIVES . . . .
Einstein's affairs should surprise no one, says Desmond Morris. It is all in the genius's genes
So Albert Einstein did not, after all, spend all his waking hours chalking up complex symbols on a blackboard. According to letters newly released this week, he devoted quite a bit of it to chasing the ladies. And with considerable success. . . . . . .
During a presidential visit to Britain, John F. Kennedy once shocked an elderly Harold Macmillan when he complained to him that if he didn't have sex with a woman every day he suffered from severe headaches. . . . .
That genius of the cinema, Charlie Chaplin, was an even more active sex addict, capable, he said, of ''six bouts a night''. Whenever he was bored he would set about seducing a girl. He had four wives (three of them teenagers) and an endless procession of mistresses, some of them alarmingly young. His greatest thrill was the prospect of deflowering a virgin. . . . .
MAYBE the key here is not "intelligence" but lack of moral values and responsibility.
All you intelligent men are being generalized and packed into the same group as those "satyr's" . . . .
steph (who just found this interesting . . )
Mar 14, '07
In my opinion, these generalizations are such baloney.
For instance :
a) The world doesn't revolve around the West and the marriage/divorce ratio of that population
b) "Marriage" means many different things to many different folks around the world. There are many here who would recoil with horror with the suggestion of "polygamy"; while many around the world consider it the norm. I won't bother introducing "polyandry".
c) The 'wildly' popular notion that "great people are without blame/shame". In other words that "great people are more than human". Why? Just because they may have some achievements in life, does that make them any more human than us... that human law, courtesy and contract be "ignored" because they are "great people" ?
d) Said article places a long elaborate thought on why "men are the way they are because of evolution" and vice-versa for women. I object because while their interpretation seems to be the "popular one" on "male roles in society" (the only one I can really object on, right?) versus "famale responsibility at home" .... nothing compared to that and our present society bodes imminent doom.
I mean, I could go on and on and on...
The very basic "premise" that patriarchal human society "grew out of evolutionary needs" is just completely absurd. Evolution is based on natural selection - natural selection doesn't give a rats doo-doo if you are "male and dominant" or "female and dominant". It only cares about "how many of you will reproduce and give forth how many of the off spring will include variants".
But to me, it is just an uninformed journalist/presenter who hasn't thought his/her story through....
Last edit by Roy Fokker on Mar 14, '07
Mar 14, '07
There might be something to the prototypical 'nature' argument that men have a vested interest in 'spreading' their seed and women a vested interest in keeping the 'breadwinner' connected to the rearing of a child.
Just as their might be more than a grain of truth in the idea that women look for the best 'breadwinners' to marry, but the best physical traits to imbue to their children and those concepts might - or might not - be tied to a single male.
However true any of those concepts might be, we are endowed with more than just our 'instinctual' characteristics. The thing many of us consider to be a 'soul' is the ability to rise ABOVE our genetic programming in the interest of our own version of 'morality'. That is, what we are by nature is not necessarily what we become as a result of nurture.
That's not to say we DO, as humans, successfully rise above our genetic programming, just that we have the CAPABILITY to do so. Therein lies the struggle within each and every one of us. If doing the right thing were easy, it wouldn't be rewarding.
So, while I might not disagree with the premise of such a concept as this article, I completely disagree with the conclusions. Intelligence absent morality does NOT make someone an ideal person, and it especially doesn't make someone an ideal 'catch'.
That some of our great inventors, thinkers, and leaders had moral flaws had nothing to do with their intelligence. It had to do with their lack of morals. Those qualities are as different as the nature and nurture seeds from which they independently derive.
(In truth, I don't believe this nature/nurture concept is so black and white, but this definition serves its purposes for this rebuttal.)
Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Mar 14, '07