Males and Females

[-CC-]

That's some vaginal shit you just said lol

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I used to hold doors open for people but at some point it became too stressful knowing how long to hold it open for, for whom to in case they were offended, etc. Now I just hum to myself loudly so that people think I'm not paying attention to my surroundings (unless I'm with someone, in which case I'll hold it unless they show earlier initiative).

 

[SentinelSlain]

Fuck doors.

 

[Zephyrus]

That's some vaginal shit you just said lol

Do you deny its truth?

 

[Vimana]

For a Woman yea absolutely. A Woman essentially wants a King. Whenever you see a girl in a King position (in a relationship) she's most likely miserable. It's rare that a Woman gets with a loser (they don't have or need the skill) but Men bring up losers and make them their Queen, which is obviously impossible for a Woman to do for a Man.

I think you're pretty much spot on about this, but I'd change the words. We spent many generations being sexually selected for our ability to hunt, protect, and provide for our groups. It's only natural that women would gravitate towards more dominant, confident, self-sufficient men who have could have resources to spare if they wanted. I wouldn't go as far as to say "King," though.

Women look upon men as kings because they view themselves as queens, the real power behind the throne.

Zeph's reply fits nicely to this. It's not something I think is even special to women. People tend to hold high views of themselves, and feel like they deserve the best they can get out of life. Women's bodies haven't exactly been suited for what we went through prior to when we killed off the worst of the dangerous megafauna and started farming. For a stretch of tens of thousands of years, it was a total necessity for a woman to have men around because even groups of grown men at the time had issues with the predators. So women evolved to get help from men through various ways for their own survival and to pass on offspring. In a sense, you could say women evolved to use men as a tool for survival, but that might seem misogynistic.

So I think women are miserable in "King" positions because the man isn't acting like the generous hunter they had been wired for 200k years to want.

 

[Wulfens]

 

[SentinelSlain]

I need my manliness and confidence back. I lost it in highschool when I fell madly in love with a britney spears clone who hated me.

 

[Vimana]

Maybe you "lost" them because you have no foundation for them that can't be broken.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

So I think women are miserable in "King" positions because the man isn't acting like the generous hunter they had been wired for 200k years to want.

From reading a lot of studies of hunter gather societies I don't think this one-sided argument holds. As a matter of fact, men are more dependent on women for food resources than the women are to men. In basically every hunter gatherer society women bring home more calories. Women do most of the gathering and small game hunting, which is more consistent and prominent food resources. Men tend to go for the more high-risk-high-reward foods i.e. big game and honey.

So based on the fact women bring in more calories in hunter gather societies, it should follow that men are "wired" to be attracted to "Queens". The fact that more men today are not probably has more of a cultural than a biological explanation.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Do you deny its truth?

It's all about perspective isn't it? You're looking at it from a point of view of antiquity. Vimanas perspective is via Evolution, and I would say I'm looking at the postmodern condition. When I use the metaphor of King and Queen I'm not saying anything about history or human evolution. I'm talking about the now. If the 3 of us went out to score a 10 (or a 25+ on my scale lol) what you're saying holds little value. All I'm talking about is how to get a top shelf Woman (strictly concerning looks at first). So when I say King, I mean confidence and control; and Queen meaning graceful and submissive. I'm really just talking game.

 

[Dak]

Maybe you "lost" them because you have no foundation for them that can't be broken.

Externally determined self worth.

 

[Vimana]

From reading a lot of studies of hunter gather societies I don't think this one-sided argument holds. As a matter of fact, men are more dependent on women for food resources than the women are to men. In basically every hunter gatherer society women bring home more calories. Women do most of the gathering and small game hunting, which is more consistent and prominent food resources. Men tend to go for the more high-risk-high-reward foods i.e. big game and honey.

So based on the fact women bring in more calories in hunter gather societies, it should follow that men are "wired" to be attracted to "Queens". The fact that more men today are not probably has more of a cultural than a biological explanation.

There is a difference between hunter-gatherer societies today and ones that existed throughout the majority of human evolution. Sure, these days, women in hunter-gatherer societies can walk around all day and collect nuts (and they do bring home more food, as they care for children much longer than people do in civilizations and have to be picking food to feed two), but 100k years ago, they'd get slaughtered at least ten times over each time they went.

In short, the environment used to have a much greater degree of danger that necessitated the protection of men for human survival (and living in groups). Also, women are especially vulnerable during pregnancy and some time after.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

There is a difference between hunter-gatherer societies today and ones that existed throughout the majority of human evolution. Sure, these days, women in hunter-gatherer societies can walk around all day and collect nuts (and they do bring home more food, as they care for children much longer than people do in civilizations and have to be picking food to feed two), but 100k years ago, they'd get slaughtered at least ten times over each time they went.

In short, the environment used to have a much greater degree of danger that necessitated the protection of men for human survival (and living in groups). Also, women are especially vulnerable during pregnancy and some time after.

Is there any evidence support any of the bolded part or is that just your theory? How can you say that hunter gatherers across the world are safer than they were 100,000 years ago? That seems like pure, unsubstantiated speculation.

Honestly I can't even think of a reason that it would be plausible. I mean recently some hunter gatherer societies have gained access to modern weapons, but for the most part they're still using homemade weapons like they have for generations. And a lion is still a lion, a snake is still a snake, etc.

 

[Vimana]

Humans lived alongside dangerous megafauna that went extinct during the pleistocene. They had more stuff to worry about than lions and snakes, like 400 pound hyenas. But besides the predators, the herbivores humans hunted were much more dangerous than any you'll find today due to their size.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Three flaws in your reasoning:

1. I'm not sure it matters if the predators were bigger than modern day predators or not. Once you get to an animal as big as lion, it's too big for any human being-man or woman-to overpower. Why would women be dependent on men to defeat these animals when really no humans can?

2. There are countless female speices throughout the animal that forage themselves and their offspring in spite of preditors, including every primate. Why would humans and pre-hominids be any different?

3. Even if it was the case that for some reason human females were unable to sufficiently forage for themselves (despite the fact that all other female primates forage) during the pleistocene era, why would you assume that human psychology would not continue evolve over the last 10,000 years and consequently reflect the increased role that women play in human survival?

 

[Vimana]

1. It's not just that there were bigger predators, but there were more, larger fauna in general before the eruption of Toba. Lions are not too big for humans to overpower with the weapons we have. The fauna during the pleistocene were considerably more dangerous and harder to kill, but not impossible. My point was that there was more danger at that time. Since women are needed for reproduction and become really vulnerable during pregnancy and after childbirth, men became the hunters and protectors of groups. Women (and thus humans) survived better when the danger was faced by the men in order to keep the women and offspring safe.

2. These female animals are usually strong enough to defend against predators, fast enough to get away from them, or stealthy enough to avoid being spotted by them. With skill, humans can pull off the last one. Not to say they couldn't ever forage on their own, just that it would be dangerous in the pleistocene. We were better off armed to fight to protect our groups, and men were better for it because if one died, you could still have the same population in the future (and childbirth was fucking terror back then). The reason we became a group animal in the first place is because we could not survive in our environment doing our own thing like chimps do. It's not just that women develop a dependence on men, but that people develop a dependence on people.

3. I think the past 10k years of human evolution are significant, but not enough to overhaul the 200k before that. I speculate that the changes in human psychology have more to do with how we function within societies of the scale we started developing when we could farm, and less in the way of each gender's set of instincts involving mating. With the spread that the human population had 10k years ago, if there were any new evolutions to human psychology that reflected changes in the role of genders, I think they'd probably vary by race. I honestly never thought about it before, but it does seem possible based on what I've read.

I still do speculate about whether some people are more towards the beginning or the end of that 10k years in terms of traits. I've thought that maybe extroverted people are the people who are further along in the adaption to large societies, and that introverts are more adapted to pre-agricultural societies. I never thought about if it has anything to do with gender, but gender isn't my main focus. It's more something I end up picking up on the side as a result of the biological side of evopsych.

 

[SentinelSlain]

A lot of women are oversexed trash that just want a massive cock in their arse. A lot of other women are hysterical feminazi hellbitches.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I need my manliness and confidence back. I lost it in highschool when I fell madly in love with a britney spears clone who hated me.

I lost mine in in middle school. The last time I made a move was during an assembly in 4th or 5th grade, when I noticed this girl I had a crush on was sitting directly behind me, and when I noticed this other girl in her row had a boy laying back in her lap. I tried the same and she immediately punched me in the temple and threatened to call a teacher. I told her that I hadn't slept in days and that I accidentally passed out briefly and pleaded that it was a mere accident.

 

[tagradh]

Browsing the forum again to see if it's possibly worth coming back.


Shoulda known not to enter one of these kinds of threads.

Such tragic comedy.

 

[SentinelSlain]

woah. that's pretty gay. you're not that bad looking, as long as you had a social circle with straight, irreligious young women in it and weren't amazingly socially awkward you'd probably at least occasionally get laid.