/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18301083]

>According to the book Sex at Dawn, women are biologically designed to be gang-raped.
>The shape of your penis head is meant to scoop another dude's sperm out of her so yours gets to the egg.
>Women naturally scream during sex to alert other men in the area that it's going down, and to line up.
>When she orgasms, the pussy seals up to hold the victorious sperm inside her.
> All women like rough sex.

Has anyone read it? what's the /lit/ consensus on sex at dawm

[Anonymous No.18301101]

>>18301083
sounds degenerate but also true

[Anonymous No.18301104]

>>18301083
It's just common sense that after being nothing but a commodity to be pillaged and raped for hundreds of thousands of years that women would adapt physically and psychologically to get the most out of the rape experience.

[Anonymous No.18301106]

>>18301083
further proof white women are built for BBC

[Anonymous No.18301119]

>>18301106
mutts law

[Anonymous No.18301141]

true but we wouldn't be human if we didn't fight our inherent nature

[Anonymous No.18301199]

>>18301083
>Women naturally scream during sex to alert other men in the area that it's going down, and to line up.

Evolutionary psychology is the most ridiculous field of all time

[Anonymous No.18301223]

>>18301083
This isn't really what the book says but ok

[Anonymous No.18301273]

>>18301083
Yes, who would have thought that running a train on a chick is the most natural form of Sex. Sports teams have it right, take turns plowing the same groupie

[Anonymous No.18301469]

>>18301141
based post.

[Anonymous No.18301550]

>>18301141
Only they don't fight it, they just subdue it for a moment, until the right cock arrives.

[Anonymous No.18301560]

[Anonymous No.18301643]

can't believe some you read shit like this unironically

[Anonymous No.18301667]

Thanks to this book thousands of men have had the courage to let their wives fuck strange men who are larger, stronger, and have larger penises. It is an unprecedented act of altruistic love and maturity, completely supported by the scientific and rigorous analysis of the human penis head, shaft, and balls

[Anonymous No.18301678]

>>18301083
>>18301104
Yet women also support infanticide and abortion specifically because of rape.

[Anonymous No.18301683]

>>18301667
c u c k e d by science

[Anonymous No.18301729]

>>18301083
The book is pseudoscience and the author is a literal cuck. It's telling that the pull quote on the cover isn't from a anthropologist or evolutionary biologist, but rather from Dan Savage, notorious sodomite who's only credential is writing a fag newspaper column where he talks about how many cocks he sucks per weekend.

[Anonymous No.18301747]

>>18301678
anyone who advocates for reproduction of rapists should adopt the resulting kids

[Anonymous No.18302002]

>>18301747
We're all descended from rape babies. It's what put our species so far ahead of all others. https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success

[Anonymous No.18302012]

>>18302002
Damn, our ancestors must have had a tragic time if they're all raped. Good thing abortion didn't exist back then.

[Anonymous No.18302046]

>>18301083
doesn't this violate uniformitarianism?

[Anonymous No.18302100]

Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds? The only people who would actually believe this are the ones who have never had sex.
>penis head scoops out sperm
Ignoring the fact that, if there's already been enough time for you to fight off the other man and fuck the woman then the egg has likely already been fertilized, have you ever tried scooping something with your dick? It doesn't work that way.
>the pussy seals up after orgasming
This is just absurd. Anyone who has actually made a woman orgasm will know that they don't "seal up". The muscles tighten and they kind of spasm, sure, but within like 30 seconds it's back to normal and you keep fucking. Hell you could turn around and make them orgasm again if you wanted, as many times as you wanted, and still keep fucking.

Who would actually believe this nonsense?

[Anonymous No.18302109]

>>18301083
>women are biologically designed to be gang-raped.
in hysterics at how hilariously based this sentiment is

[Anonymous No.18302139]

>>18301083
Pic related to all greentext, considering that atleast two are outright bullshit/untrue.

[Anonymous No.18302170]

>>18301083
>According to random shitposters everything that is in a book is literature
>Without a viable means of selection, stupidity always wins out
>Everything still posted on /lit/ is dumb bait shitposts
Checks out
You only exist because of gangrape, OP
And everyone is the poorer for it

[Anonymous No.18302251]

>>18302012
Women fantasize about being raped all the time. Modernity robs them of this quintessential human experience. Thankfully migration policy is addressing this problem.

[Anonymous No.18302253]

>>18301083
Unironically a psychoanalytic perspective does a better job of explaining rape fantasies than evolutionary psychology. Women are more neurotic than men and prone to insecurity and anxiety. People who are neurotic and anxious begin fetishizing losing control because it means they can surrender all responsibility. Women fetishize rape because they have to worry about it so much, there is always this underlying tension and irritation in the back of their minds, and after years and years the kind has this funny way of subverting an extreme into its opposite. Like a guy who is terrified his wife will cheat on him and inadvertently develops a cuck fetish because by surrendering control he doesn’t have to be scared all the time.
TL;DR neurotic people are subhuman and genetically unfit for basic responsibility and confirm this by fantasizing about surrendering control through masochistic fetishes

[Anonymous No.18302257]

>>18302251
And you fantasize about sucking cock
Does that mean you really want to go out there and get at it?

[Anonymous No.18302264]

The goodreads reviews aren't looking good, bros

[Anonymous No.18302271]

>>18302253
Or it could just be that women live in actual fear of actual rape most of their reproductive lives, and fantasy is a common coping mechanism for letting off steam
Did any of you retards read anything that was written withing the last 50 years?

[Anonymous No.18302276]

>>18302257
Wow, why so defensive about self-evident facts of human nature?

[Anonymous No.18302285]

>>18302276
Who's defensive. Just go at it, bro.
You'll feel much better out of the closet

[Anonymous No.18302307]

>>18302271
Yeah that’s basically what I said. Long term anxieties manifest coping mechanisms, some far more pathological than others. Extremely neurotic people create copes like crazy in just about every facet of their lives.

[Anonymous No.18302319]

>>18301106
based

[Anonymous No.18302325]

>>18301683
science wins again

[Anonymous No.18302330]

>>18302285
At least we can agree that homosexuality is a moral abomination.

[Anonymous No.18302383]

>>18301083
>> All women like rough sex.
BASED

[Anonymous No.18302393]

>>18302253
>People who are neurotic and anxious begin fetishizing losing control because it means they can surrender all responsibility.
I like this line.

[Anonymous No.18302400]

>>18301083
>>The shape of your penis head is meant to scoop another dude's sperm out of her so yours gets to the egg.
I'm sure this was disprove with experiments involving plastic dicks

[Anonymous No.18302413]

>>18301104
Based and sciencepilled

[Anonymous No.18302419]

>>18302400
It was also probably debunked in another novel experiment, the famous "400 man creampie gangbang".

[Anonymous No.18302435]

>>18301104
>that women would adapt physically
lmfao. Even mtf trannies dunk on women

[Anonymous No.18302452]

>>18302419
I fucking hate this world

[Anonymous No.18302453]

>>18302435
You're not disagreeing here. They adapted physically by having sex organs that are not damaged by gang rape and psychologically by learning to enjoy it.

[Anonymous No.18302483]

>>18302435
That's a FtM anon

[Anonymous No.18302514]

Why does this make me want to die?

[Anonymous No.18302715]

>>18301083
>UHH THE DICK LOOKS LIKE A SCOOP AND SHIT
>WOMEN NEED TO GET FUCKED, VAGINA SEAL UP JIZZ AND EGGS AND SHIT

This guy is a judaized moron. Next he's going to write about spaceships and magic mushrooms. He got rich off riffing with sexual taboos and genitals.

[Anonymous No.18302724]

>>18301678
only 0.05% of abortions are due to rape

[Anonymous No.18302727]

>>18301083
Please find any god damn porn website on the internet, and search for "creampie". Most of the semen is naturally wasted because it flows out of vagina pretty quickly without any idiotic “scooping”. How you ejaculate inside is largely not important, because fluids get mixed, and sperm travel to the womb on their own (or so scientists believe, because we don't know the details exactly, despite all the modern hysteria about sex).

I guess the only people who believe that nonsense are those who reason about sex using examples from hentai manga in which semen goes straight to the womb. It should not be hard to realize that soft fleshy penis of any form can only mix the wet contents of soft fleshy vagina, and that placement of most sensitive tissue right on the curve of the head provides better explanation.

[Anonymous No.18302749]

>>18302307
You would know

[Anonymous No.18302758]

>>18302727
Welcome to incel basecamp
Please leave reason at the door

[Anonymous No.18302771]

>>18301106
Based

[Anonymous No.18302806]

>>18302514
Because it's morbid, bestial, and sick. It's the reason sex and sexuality should be repressed. Humans have the power of reason, and should strive for something better than the mechanical sloshing of fluids and mindless stimulation. It's the reason almost every religion views sex as evil, bestial, antithetical to realizing mankind's potential.

[Anonymous No.18302818]

>>18302806
If your sex is mechanical you're not doing a very good job

[Anonymous No.18303147]

>anglos will have their minds warped for decades by shit-tier pop-sci

[Anonymous No.18303153]

>>18302806
This is what people say when your brain is on humanism

We are no different than other animals and use our apparent rational self awareness as a justification for superiority through all the philosophical western dribble. Humans are just flesh bags and women in particular are bestial when it comes to sex, they cannot help it.

[Anonymous No.18303172]

>>18301083
>All women like rough sex.
this one is true
also, women like the idea of rape, but only in a safe environment (also tied to rough sex), with someone they trust

all other claims are unsubstantiated pseudo-science bullshit

[Anonymous No.18303183]

>>18302806
Incel hands wrote this post.

[Anonymous No.18303254]

>>18301101
It's not true. It's a post hoc justification of degerenacy today. In reality, primal man was indeed a noble savage. The density of hunter gather man was sparse. Mating opportunities were limited and primacy for conjugal relations were ultimately dictated by law of the club. Sexual relations were not maladaptive to the point where survival would be threatened by their indulgence which all would entail. All evidence indicates a low prevalence of STDs. The primal man was chaste. Perversions like sodomy and masturbation were absent. The lack of opportunities and disadvantages born by hypersexualization would naturally mean a lower reinforcement of sexual behavior thereby a decreased frequency. Some have even postulated that primal man, like other mammals, followed a seasonal mating frequency. The departure from the natural state leaves modern humans copulating and related behaviors worse than any frequency in nature and at times where it serves zero reproductive value such as pregnancy which was viewed with horror even in antiquity. No other animal than modern man is perverted enough to copulate in conditions nature naturally deters. The women experiences morning sickness and hypernosmia to deter it. It is only through disgusting reinforcement of the sexual instinct they indulge in it which also causes physical damage to the fetus and raises androgens leading to autism and homosexuality. Recreational sexuality as posited by the book threatens survival and would have doomed us to extinction long ago.

[Anonymous No.18303271]

>>18303254
Is there any literature you recommend on the sexuality of previous generations? I refuse to believe we've always been such megacoomers like we are today.

[Anonymous No.18303322]

>>18303271
Perhaps something that talks about "love" as well.

[Anonymous No.18303330]

>>18303254
> Perversions like sodomy and masturbation were absent.
No shit, Sherlock. If words like “sodomy”, “masturbation”, “perversion” don't exist, neither these things themselves do.

[Anonymous No.18303333]

>>18301199
but it’s funny that’s like the thing a sexist comedian would make up on stage

>hey folks! ever wonder why women scream during sex? how else did her ancestors alert every other male in the area!

[Anonymous No.18303346]

>>18303330
So existence started with language? checkmate.
>>18303333
LMAO and checked.

[Anonymous No.18303351]

>>18302100
>>penis head scoops out sperm
>Ignoring the fact that, if there's already been enough time for you to fight off the other man and fuck the woman then the egg has likely already been fertilized, have you ever tried scooping something with your dick? It doesn't work that way.

t. droop dick
tfw no shovel dick like mine i can clear driveways in minnesota in mere minutes

[Anonymous No.18303357]

>>18303271
There are many anthropological case studies from the 18th and early-mid 19th centuries where primitive people were observed. The native Americans kept the women isolated during pregnancy. There was this French guy (himself a coomer) who went to china in the 1890s and commented that the Cantonese were more masculine and less sex obsessed than their mandarin counterparts who has a habit of masturbating daily.

A bit of a meme but 'Science Discovers The Physiological Value of Continence' cites a few of these (not the French guy above, he's a bit more well known, hoping someone knows who I'm talking about and has a name). I'll post some excerpts.

[Anonymous No.18303358]

>>18303254
>primacy for conjugal relations were ultimately dictated by law of the club
People also go to the club to get laid today

[Anonymous No.18303370]

>>18303254
>No other animal than modern man is perverted enough to copulate in conditions nature naturally deters
Also this is plainly false

[Anonymous No.18303376]

>>18303254
Holy based

[Anonymous No.18303379]

>>18302435
that’s a female on testosterone

[Anonymous No.18303399]

>>18303357
>Of all members of the mammalian family, civilized man alone is a victim of an exaggerated and morbid sexual urge, a condition which he has inflicted, to a certain extent, on the animals which he has domesticated and which have adopted his diet, especially the dog. Wild animals in a state of nature practice copulation only at certain mating seasons for the purpose of reproduction. Civilized man practices this act at all times, and in most cases without intention to conceive. On the other hand, so-called savages and primitive races leading more natural lives and who follow their natural instincts to a greater extent are far chaste in their sexual behavior, as noted by Havelock Ellis. Such considerations must lead one to the conclusion that the sex life of civilized men is unnatural and that the excessive manifestation of the sex urge among them is due to certain aphrodisiacal stimuli rather than to natural instinct; among such stimuli are a high-protein meat diet (accompanied by physical inactivity), the use of tobacco, alcohol and coffee, sexually stimulating literature, dramas, motion pictures, conversation, etc. For these reasons civilized man has departed from the natural law, obeyed by animal and primitive races, which requires the separation of the sexes during pregnancy and lactation, for the benefit of both mother and child. Violation of this law may account for the large number of physically and mentally defective offspring produced by civilized races as compared with animals and primitive peoples.

>Among the Andamenese, Portman says that sex desire is moderate in males, it does not appear before the age of eighteen, and is rarely gratified until marriage when a man is 26. According to Haydes and Deniker, among the Fuegians, both men and women are extremely moderate in sexual indulgence. In the case of the Esquimaux, Cook notes that the sexual passions do not manifest during the long darkness of winter, and the menstrual function does not either; the majority of the children are born nine months after the appearance of the sun. On the basis of such observation Havelock Ellis concludes that the sex instinct of primitive peoples is less intense and manifests more infrequently than that of civilized man; moreover it tends to manifest at certain mating seasons and to find expression chiefly in reproduction.

Wrong to blame protein. If anything carbohydrates modulate LH in men, in turn their excess may be more a factor if diet is considered but then again this was written a while ago but still has good points.
>>18303370
Refuted above.

[Anonymous No.18303398]

>>18303153
everyone is bestial when it comes to sex everyone is bestial period but pretends not to be

[Anonymous No.18303401]

>>18301083
Its pretty accurate. Look at dyke lesbians for an example: all of them crudely try to fashion themselves into the example of some pseudo interpretation of "masculinity". So we always see them get high fade haircuts with Ellen Degeneres faces and they try to behave like "men", but in reality they just talk really loud and try to be abrasive. This is an extension of female sexuality which is based around the attempt to get raped.

[Anonymous No.18303427]

>>18303357
>Animals, like men, become perverted sexually and victims of an exaggerated sexual urge when they are subjected to artificial feeding and confinement. Thus apes, when confined to a cage and fed on meat and other sexually stimulating food, while previously gentle and tame on a fruit diet, become extremely licentious and vicious. Then they masturbate excessively and have intercourse daily, while the female consequently menstruates as freely as a woman. (Other female mammals leading more natural lives do not menstruate, though under domestication and excessive feeding, cows and other species do.)

>Holder finds that the Indians of America were originally far less salacious than either the white or the negro races that later came to this continent. Dr. Beard notes that Indian boys do not masturbate and young men remain chaste until marriage, conditions which we do not find among so-called civilized races. Spencer, who studied California Indians, remarks that after the appearance of menstruation, a girl is never allowed in the company of the opposite sex until her marriage, and that during pregnancy and lactation there is strict chastity. Nor is coitus permitted after feasts of meat, when there is a state of sexual super-excitation. Ordinarily the men and boys sleep in a separate dormitory. Spencer remarks that an intelligent Indian of his acquaintance on his death-bed confessed a sin that had grievously burdened his conscience. "He had cohabited with his wife after a big dinner of fresh beef, and felt the remorse of unpardoned guilt upon his soul."

>Chastity before marriage is the rule in many parts of Africa. In some parts of West Africa a girl guilty of unchastity is severely punished. Among the Ba Henda of North Transvaal, no sexual intercourse before marriage is allowed, and if it is seen that a girl's labia are apart when she sits down on a stone she in punished as guilty of having had intercourse. Among the Syntengs, the husband does not live in the same house with his wife, but only visits her occasionally in her mother's house where she continues to live. Smyth remarks that promiscuous intercourse between the sexes is not practiced by the Australian aborigines, and their laws on the subject are strict. No conversation is permitted between single men and girls or married women. Infractions of these laws are sometimes punished by death. Among the Seri, the young man is compelled to pass a probationary period of continence for one year prior to marriage as a test of his ability of sexual self-control. Among the Pueblos, the morals of the young are supervised by a secret police which reports all irregularities, in which case the young man and girl are compelled to marry. In Uganda, continence is practiced for two years after childbirth, and among the Fijians, husband and wife live apart three or four years, so that no other babe may interfere with the time thought necessary...

[Anonymous No.18303432]

>>18303401
lesbians aren’t attracted to men tho so how are they trying to get r*ped?

[Anonymous No.18303439]

>>18303432
Lesbians usually have some tremendous problem with their dads, usually involving direct competition and/or imitation of their fathers behavioral patterns into the absurd. The "sexual attraction" thing is a joke. When you break down a lesbian "couple" you will find the general fear of masculinity is the only thing binding the relationship together.

[Anonymous No.18303442]

>>18302806

Unironically.

[Anonymous No.18303448]

>>18303401
>its pretty accurate
>offers proof of perversion leading to more perversion
So accurate that you've proved its bullshit just looking to justify perversions.

[Anonymous No.18303454]

>>18303448
Belle Daphine's "big release" was a rape porno. This was the foundation for all porn BTW: rape.

[Anonymous No.18303458]

>>18303254
absolute nonsense bullshit

[Anonymous No.18303463]

>>18303439
so they’re not trying to get r*ped? i’ve met lesbian couples they seem to like to fuck eachother alot, do you spy on lesbian couples to see if they are actually attracted to eachother sexually?

[Anonymous No.18303467]

>>18303463
They just imitate the rape fantasy in a "safe space" localization. Fuck a lesbian and then talk to me about what you know or don't know.

[Anonymous No.18303474]

>>18303330
literal foucalt 'AIDs doesn't exist if I don't believe in it' tier.

[Anonymous No.18303481]

>>18303439
if they’re afraid of masculinity why act so masculine and date someone who is extremely masculine? what about fem lesbians? what about bisexuals? your bullshit sounds like it would make more sense for “asexual”

[Anonymous No.18303491]

>>18303481
>date someone who is extreme masculine
But it's not masculine, it's playacting. It's just a costume. They are crude parodies of masculinity, not actually masculine whatsoever. It's playacting, a show, a kind of comic relief for the internalized trauma.
>fem lesbians
So women that are so terrified of men they replicate a conception of utter submissivity to another woman? lel, yes, its the ultimate rape fetish.
>bisexuals
A "bisexual" is just an individual with borderline personality disorder, probably suicidal tendencies.

[Anonymous No.18303502]

>>18303474
Foucalt was an advocate for child pedophilia. He was an apex predator, he wanted to rape and little boys are the ultimate rape target for such individuals because they can 'break em while they're young'

[Anonymous No.18303514]

>>18303271
>>18303357
>>18303399
>>18303427

More to the point that sexual desire is socially conditioned and that "thermodynamic" models of desire, as part of broader "thermodynamic" psychology, are totally false. That which is meant to "release" the "excess" of desire actually further increases it.

[Anonymous No.18303520]

>>18303454
Voeyerism is the opposite of rape and its fetishization means nothing. The existence of rape in wild primates, including man, is a nonentity as it relates to the drivel of sex at dawn and a mating event that would fulfill reproduction and would not itself indicate reckless perversion indulgence to the level the authors assert where man would waste his peak energy engaging in an orgy of recreational sex daily at the most valuable hours of the day. Nobody is talking about morals here and this isn't a justification much like your post isn't a refutation of anything.

[Anonymous No.18303522]

>>18303491
how can you tell the difference between fake masculinity or real masculinity? how is submissiveness to a woman a rape fetish? explain. can you prove all bisexuals have BPS?

[Anonymous No.18303529]

>>18303254
based schizo

[Anonymous No.18303531]

>>18303467
can you prove they’re imitating a rape fentasy?

[Anonymous No.18303535]

>>18303520
>man would waste his peak energy
Yes, but we are talking about womyn here and womyn want such a condition for men.

[ReleaseMeFromThisMask-LikeForm !!HraTM3Vvtb/ No.18303537]

>>18303514
Sexual intercourse is a precisely and essentially "haphazard" (Dick 1992) and "deterritorialized" act, profoundly disorganized (by desire) and discombobulated by desire, as well as by mechanical constriction of movement (by the "brain") and by engorgement of matter with desire itself (by the "vagina").

That Dick found these phenomena so disorienting, when he saw them for the first time in person in these laboratory experiments of his own with himself, underscores how deeply sexual desire has been rooted.

[Anonymous No.18303542]

>>18303514
Sexual behavior induces Delta FOSB expression, ergo reinforcement.

Also, it's been proven man can be conditioned to be aroused at the site of a penny jar. I'll link some studies.

[Anonymous No.18303549]

>>18303531
Sure very simply:
dyke butch wants to imitate the sexual rage she feels towards her father because she feels that by ritualistically mocking masculinity she can possess some sort of charisma and/or justification for her existence which leads her to becoming a crude and laughable meme of masculinity while never bearing children and dying barren and alone at 40+ years of age.

[Anonymous No.18303556]

>>18301560
You can be correct and retarded at the same time
Pic related

[Anonymous No.18303558]

>>18303542
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10224951/

[Anonymous No.18303565]

>>18303549
can you prove that’s what she’s doing?

[Anonymous No.18303571]

>>18303542
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30869949/

[Anonymous No.18303576]

>>18303565
Yep just ask her about her dad while you're raping her.

[Anonymous No.18303579]

>>18303558
>>18303571
Dumb it down for me honey and give me a ELI5 tldr.

[Anonymous No.18303581]

>>18303576
id rather be the one get r*ped though

[Anonymous No.18303591]

>>18303579
I did. >>18303542

[Anonymous No.18303618]

>>18303591
>>18303591
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10224951/
I don't get what is meant with a backward conditioning method. Are there more studies that replicated this and got similar results?

[Anonymous No.18303629]

>>18303502
He fought for your right to rape teenage girls, you know?

[Anonymous No.18303639]

>>18301083
WHAT THE FUCK

[Anonymous No.18303641]

>>18303172
Do they like it the same way the like pink color — by learning that they are supposed to?

[Anonymous No.18303715]

>>18303399
Undoubtedly hypersexualization is bad, but no recreational sex at all and being a prude is not that fun either. I am sure caveman had sex for fun, just maybe not to the same extent because of tougher life.

Don't be a degenerate but a healthy sex drive and recreational sex is alright. Balance in everything.

[Anonymous No.18303728]

>>18303715
But how do you know the balance is there? Abstain and only procreate!

[Anonymous No.18303750]

>>18303639
>>18303728
>>18303715
I just want to kill girls
It's all so tiring, and only killing girls will cheer me up at this point

[Anonymous No.18303765]

>>18303728
Its natural for healthy adult humans to be horny and have desures, and chances of actual procreation are slim and in between.

Recreational sex is fun, normal and healthy. Adult females _need_ sex every few weeks if they want to keep their hormones in check, but its ridiculous that they would want to get pregnant every time.

Like I said, dont be a degenerate thinking about sex all the time and cooming non stop, thats just addiction as a result of hypersexualization.

[Anonymous No.18303776]

Are there any books that address the fact that 21st century women all suffer from crippling self esteem issues and are irrational and erratic because their brains are sending distress signals due to being deprived of the female body’s sole purpose (breeding)?

[Anonymous No.18303780]

>>18303776
They usually figure this out themselves when they're 28 or 29 and can't compete with the 18 year olds anymore.

[Anonymous No.18303783]

>>18303765
>Adult females _need_ sex every few weeks if they want to keep their hormones in check,
Is this really what whores tell themselves to justify sleeping with strangers? Kek

[Anonymous No.18303808]

>>18303556
Kek
I love women, but there really does seem to be an invisible barrier between the female mind and deep thought. Thinking for the sake of thinking is an exceedingly rare thing to for females to do.
I refuse to call women “stupid” though because it’s not fair to compare the female mind to the male mind. That would be like putting a saddle on a hog, mounting it, and then saying “this horse is shit!”

[Anonymous No.18303817]

>>18303783
An incel in their 20s typed this post

Try being in a healthy relationship first before talking out of your ass

I am not talking about casual sex with strangers but in the context of a relationship its perfectly fine

[Anonymous No.18303833]

>>18303808
>>18303776

Read Shoppenhauers essay On Women, it explains women across all time periods perfectly

[Anonymous No.18303836]

>>18303765
>their hormones

Pure fabrication.

[Anonymous No.18303850]

>>18303836
If you take two women with natural cycles and one has sex during her ovulation (even without conceiving) and the other one doesn't, guess which one will be more content and have more balanced hormone levels

[Anonymous No.18303859]

>>18303850
that's because people getting laid are happier than people not getting laid. has nothing to do with hormones you goofy monkey.

[Anonymous No.18303864]

>>18303850
Which one is already a mother?

[Anonymous No.18303873]

>>18302383
this is weird

[Anonymous No.18303875]

>>18303833
Is that in Essays and Aphorisms?

[Anonymous No.18303901]

>>18301560
Haven't seen this one in awhile. Always kek

[Anonymous No.18303913]

>>18303859
maybe you should try researching this yourself more in depth

[Anonymous No.18303914]

>>18303780
I love when this happens
I just love seeing haggard old women on tinder with the "want someday" tag
Pls recommend female schadenfreude books pls

[Anonymous No.18303926]

>>18303765
> but its ridiculous that they would want to get pregnant every time
Until very recently, a common grown up woman was either pregnant or breastfeeding, only to become pregnant again as soon as she becomes fertile again. Why? Because her lawful husband (and sometimes other older males of the patriarchal family) did not stop fucking her through all of that. It is proposed that some traditions of special treatment of pregnant women appeared out of necessity to stop the males from disturbing the pregnancy. Some idiots compel their wives to have porn-style sex at late stages even today.

So the “hormones” explanation is bullshit, as pregnancy is a way much bigger hormonal shift, and the ones who need to keep “hormones” “in check” are actually males.

[Anonymous No.18303945]

>>18303926
Once you pop out a couple of kids, continually doing it again is tiresome and women despite what you may think are not just baby making machines. Only if you reduce them to the bare animal.

My point still stands, its ridiculous that they would want to get pregnant every time having sex

[Anonymous No.18303962]

>>18301083
It was debunked a long time ago. Please read Sex at Dusk by Lynn Saxon and also refer to the review by Ryan Ellsworth entitled The Human That Never Evolved. Ellsworth has another article where he reviews Sex at Dusk, which you should read as well.

[Anonymous No.18303980]

>>18303913
nah, you've provided no evidence for your claim so you are wrong.

[Anonymous No.18303981]

>>18301083
David P. Barash criticized the book as follows:

"A little while ago, I worried that the next time someone asked me about the book, Sex at Dawn, by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá, I might vomit. An over-reaction? Perhaps. And one likely composed, in part, of simple envy, since their book seems to have sold a lot of copies. At least as contributory, however, is the profoundly annoying fact that Sex at Dawn has been taken as scientifically valid by large numbers of naïve readers … whereas it is an intellectually myopic, ideologically driven, pseudo-scientific fraud.

Written by people who don’t know diddly-squat about evolutionary biology, and—worse yet—who don’t know how much they don’t know, Sex at Dawn purports to demonstrate that human beings are “naturally” polyamorous, that (channeling Rousseau) we are born sexually open, omnivorous and pleasure-seeking, but are everywhere—or almost everywhere—in prudish, Victorian chains.

In the process, the authors trot out any number of biological howlers, not least a profound misreading of not only bonobo (“pygmy chimp”) sexuality, but what, if anything, this implies for Homo sapiens. Their goal (aside from making money, not in itself deplorable), is clearly to justify their own chosen lifestyle … also not deplorable, except insofar as it has produced intellectual dishonesty combined with misrepresentation of both theory and data: Science fiction, at best."

[Anonymous No.18303991]

>>18302727
are you actually a virgin lmao

creampie porn is like that for the camera, the actor purposely cums shallowly while the actress pushes it outwards, for the camera

[Anonymous No.18304004]

>>18301141
there is no human nature, just psychologies inherited from the material circumstances we find ourselves in. There is nothing outside of society

[Anonymous No.18304007]

>>18303945
There was no such option for most people for the most of human history. Have sex a couple of times, and you're a father again.

[Anonymous No.18304019]

>>18301083
The Human That Never Evolved
A review of Christopher Ryan and Caclida Jethá, Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We
Stray, and What It Means for Modern Relationships.
Ryan M. Ellsworth, Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA.
The latest in a long tradition of scholarship critiquing what is seen as the persistent
and pertinacious inadequacies of widely held evolutionary perspectives on human sexuality
(e.g., Hrdy, 1980; Sherfey, 1972; Small 1993), Sex at Dawn, by Christopher Ryan and
Cacilda Jethá, is certainly one of the most ambitious. Opting out of the formal academic
style of writing, the book makes for an entertaining read, accessible to the lay reader not
intimately familiar with modern evolutionary theory. Indeed, its popular appeal is revealed
by its (paperback edition) front cover boast of inclusion on the New York Times bestseller
list. While numerous reviews have been presented in newspapers, magazines, and websites,
I have failed to find one review in an academic journal or by an evolutionary scientist
(those who might be expected to give the most informed type of assessment of content).
The public—in many cases unfortunately, but understandably—is largely educated in
science through popular expositions such as this, and therefore it is crucial that researchers
in the pertinent fields not ignore such publications or shirk from weighing in on the issues.
In this review, I address what I see as biased reporting of data, theoretical and evidentiary
shortcomings, and problematic assumptions misleadingly put forth as well-supported
hypotheses contained in Sex at Dawn. Spatial constraints prevent comprehensive evaluation
of the numerous topics touched on in the book. Thus, I limit discussion to a few issues I see
as especially meriting attention.
Sex at Dawn sets out to topple what the authors call the “standard narrative of
human sexual evolution” (p. 7), with its emphasis on the centrality of pair-bonding and
monogamous mating, and fundamental conflicts of reproductive interests in the evolution
of human sociality and sexuality. They see the mainstream evolutionary perspective as
deeply flawed, as well as politicized, arguing that “It hides the truth of human sexuality
behind a fig leaf of anachronistic Victorian discretion repackaged as science” (p. 35). The
standard narrative, Ryan and Jethá argue, is merely the projection of contemporary
arrangements back into the ancestral past, a tendency they refer to as “Flintstonization” (p.
32). Not only are current mainstream views on human sexual evolution theoretically and factually wrong and political, “but destructive, sustaining a false sense of what it means to
be a human” (p. 33, emphasis added), adding misery to the lives of those who buy into the
myth, but struggle to live up to it. Now those are some bold claims! And bold claims
demand strong evidence. I examine a sampling of what they proffer shortly.

[Anonymous No.18304028]

>>18304019
The standard narrative of male preferences for youth and fidelity; contingency of
parental investment on paternity certainty; female preferences for status, wealth, and
willingness to invest; and the establishment of exclusive long-term reproductive bonds are
seen by Ryan and Jethá not “as elements of human nature so much as adaptations to social
conditions—many of which were introduced with the advent of agriculture no more than
ten thousand years ago” (p. 8). Thus, monogamous pair-bonding is a response to
environmental novelty largely created by an agricultural mode of subsistence, and
“promiscuous impulses remain our biological baseline, our reference point” (p. 46).
Opening their book by pointing out the everyday evidence of a sort of sexual
identity crisis of modern Western society, Ryan and Jethá endeavor to explain our painfully
conflicted sexual existence. Their diagnosis in a nutshell: the advent of agriculture and its
socioecological consequences. But this is getting too far ahead of things, and I should
examine some elements of their case from the ground up.
The introduction and the first three chapters outline their main claims
(introduction), give the reader a brief lesson on cultural relativity (chapter one), discuss
Darwin’s views of sexual selection and the Victorian social context of early theories of
human evolution (chapter two), and sketch out evolutionary psychology and the “standard
narrative” as they see it (chapter three).

[Anonymous No.18304037]

>>18304028
In chapter four, Ryan and Jethá begin to lay the foundation of their alternative
narrative of human sexual evolution by rejecting the chimpanzee model, and, taking a lead
from Lewis Henry Morgan’s speculations on the nature of primitive human sexuality (pp.
41-44), embracing the bonobo model as representative of early hominin sociosexuality. The
basis for this assignment lay in the many similarities they see between human and bonobo
sociosexual behavior and ontogeny, which differ for chimpanzees, including: sex across the
menstrual cycle and during pregnancy and lactation, the comparatively slow rate of infant
development, the return and rapid recommencement of sexual behavior of females after
parturition, varied copulatory positions, eye gazing and kissing during copulation, a more
forwardly oriented vulva, food sharing associated with sexual activity, homo-and
heterosexual activity, sex for non-reproductive ends, and possibly genital-gential rubbing
(pp. 77-78). Brushed aside from their comparisons of humans, chimps, and bonobos
include sex-based hierarchies, sex-biased cooperation and coalitions, and intergroup
hostility, for which humans have more in common with chimps than bonobos (although
they argue that intergroup aggression among chimps are the result of provisioning and
other human disruptions). Weakening their own argument, Ryan and Jethá point out later in
the book that rape, infanticide, war, and murder have never been witnessed among bonobos
(p. 187). Yet, all of these behaviors occur among humans.
In adopting the bonobo model of ancestral human sociosexuality, Ryan and Jethá
would seem to be placing promiscuous sexuality deep in the roots of human phylogeny.
This, however, is complicated by the fact that before introducing the hypothesis of a
bonobo-like ancestry, they assert that “a few million years ago, our ancient ancestors (Homo erectus) shifted from a gorilla-like mating system where an alpha male fought to
win and maintain a harem of females to one in which most males had sexual access to
females” (p. 11). Thus, according to the arguments put forth by Ryan and Jethá, any
similarities between humans and bonobos are (re?)convergent adaptations to ecological
pressures unspecified by the authors. At any rate, while it locates their arguments on a
shaky and debatable foundation, the bonobo paradigm should not be dismissed out of hand,
and its merit should be judged on the evidence mustered for it, and the utility made of it in
formulating explanations. In my assessment, their evidence is weak, and their use of it is
limited to occasional restatement of a bonobo-like past for humans.

[Anonymous No.18304043]

>>18304037
The bonobo view of ancestral humans leads Ryan and Jethá to the assertion of two
points: That war was rare among ancestral foragers, and that ancestral human societies
were characterized by several ongoing, nonexclusive mating relationships wherein
paternity certainty was a nonissue. I will address these issues in turn, although not in the
sequence which they are presented in the book.
According to Ryan and Jethá, intergroup aggression was rare among ancestral
foragers simply because there was nothing worth fighting over. “[H]ierarchical, aggressive,
and territorial behavior is of recent origin for our species. It is…an adaptation to the social
world that arose with agriculture.” (p. 76). They argue that unconcentrated dispersal of
reliable food sources ruled out conflict over these resources, and low population density
meant that territoriality was not a concern—this despite abundant (unmentioned)
ethnographic evidence of territoriality and territorial intergroup aggression among huntergatherer populations (see, e.g., Ember, 1978; Keeley, 1996; Manson and Wrangham, 1991;
Wilson, 1980, pp. 107-109; Wrangham and Peterson, 1996). Lastly, they permit the
possibility that intergroup conflict may have been over women, but state that “this claim
presumes that population growth was important to foragers and that women were
commodities to be fought over…” (p. 76). This statement ignores the evidence from several
foraging societies in which women are a cause of intergroup aggression (see Manson and
Wrangham, 1991). Furthermore, in addition to being group-selectionist, it presumes that
humans are motivated by ultimate considerations.
In a section titled “Professor Pinker, Red in Tooth and Claw,” the authors single out
a lecture given by Steven Pinker in which he presents data on male warfare-related
mortality showing much higher percentage of male deaths due to lethal intergroup
aggression among traditional societies as compared to 20th century US and Europe. Ryan
and Jethá reject Pinker’s figures as representative of ancestral male war-related death
because six of the seven societies included are not properly classified as “immediatereturn” foragers, but rather as horticulturalists; four of the societies are from densely
populated Papua New Guinea; and debate about the typicality and male warfare mortality
rate among the Australian society included (the Gebusi) (pp. 184-185).

[Anonymous No.18304057]

>>18304043
In light of the authors’ critique, one would expect the presentation of some evidence
supporting their claims as to the paucity of intergroup aggression among contemporary and
ancestral foragers. Alas, the only evidence offered is a handful of quotes from authors in
agreement with their position, DNA analyses indicating low population densities in the
Pleistocene, and the scarcity of skeletal indications of interpersonal violence in the
archaeological record (pp. 190-193). That, and the complaint that bonobos are given short shrift in published accounts of the origin of human warfare (p. 186). Ryan and Jethá draw
attention to the correlation between population density and warfare, and implicate
agriculture and its concomitants as a major factor in the prevalence of war in postPleistocene human history. There is widespread agreement that agriculture-related
population density seems to have exacerbated the frequency and intensity of war postPleistocene. However, the authors make a weak case for arguing that it was a rare and
unimportant selective pressure in human evolution. Curiously omitted from their review is
the fact that the !Kung, referred to by Thomas (1959) as the “harmless people,” engaged in
lethal intergroup raiding (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1989), and had a homicide rate rivaling that of
the “most violent American urban ghettos” (Daly and Wilson, 1988, p. 291).
The portrait that Ryan and Jethá paint of the ancestral forager—small, nomadic,
isolated, egalitarian, peaceful groups with no territorial agenda, “whose life was solely
made up of cooperation with scarcely any competitiveness, aggression, or nastiness of any
kind” (Alexander, 1987, p. 127)—is what Alexander has referred to as the “central myth of
modern anthropology” (1987, p. 127). The myth is the assumption that contemporary
foragers inhabit the same regions and display the same behavior as ancestral foragers.
Modern-day foraging populations reside where they do largely because that is where they
have been driven by their more powerful neighbors. And inhabiting impoverished habitats,
population densities are kept very low. As Alexander argues, the modern foraging lifestyle
“is a way of life that is stable because it has so far been forced on those who follow it”
(ibid.). If Alexander is correct, this calls into question just what can be gleaned about the
past from foragers today.

[Anonymous No.18304070]

>>18304057
I turn now to the next, and most important, aspect of Ryan and Jethá’s narrative: the
nature of ancestral human sexuality. As mentioned above, the adoption of the bonobo
model lays the foundation for their conception of ancestral mating as promiscuous and fluid
(p. 45), and males unconcerned with paternity (p. 15, 104). Flowing from the bonobo
model combined with the ethics of generosity and reciprocation described as vitally
important to “fiercely egalitarian” modern foragers, is their hypothesis that “Socio-Erotic
Exchanges (S.E.Ex. for short) strengthen the bonds among individuals in small-scale
nomadic societies (and, apparently other highly interdependent groups), forming a crucial,
durable web of affection, affiliation, and mutual obligation” (p. 94). In addition, they go on
to note that “Without frequent S.E.Ex., it’s doubtful that foraging bands could have
maintained social equilibrium and fecundity over the millennia” (p. 94) Let us look at the
evidence they bring to bear on the argument.

[Anonymous No.18304076]

>>18304007
Not always the case, there are a lot of variables at play. Since we can only speak for today, some couples do it on first try hoping to conceive and others have to try for months or years and still cant, and its not for lack of trying.

[Anonymous No.18304079]

>>18304070
The first piece of evidence they present in Chapter six is the existence of cultures
that practice ‘partible paternity,’ the idea that a child can have more than one genitor (see
Beckerman and Valentine, 2002). In a cursory and selective treatment of the literature,
Ryan and Jethá portray sexuality and the relations between males and females in partible
paternity societies as carefree, unencumbered by the jealousy and other difficulties and
conflicts that attend more restrictive cultural mores. Promiscuous sex creates and promotes
webs of affection and affiliation. Further, the institution of partible paternity means that
male parental care is diffused, resources are distributed among a wider social network, and
children benefit from the investment of multiple fathers (but see Ales, 2002; Crocker, 2002;
Peluso and Boster, 2002). In sum, “Belief in partible paternity spreads fatherly feelings throughout the group” (p. 107). What the authors fail to mention is that male sexual
jealousy and sexual conflict are not absent from even the most sexually liberal of partible
paternity societies (see, e.g., Crocker and Crocker, 2004; Kensinger, 2002). Crocker and
Crocker (2004, p. 111) tell us that the Canela, one of the most promiscuous cultures known,
“believe that husbands have to be taught not to be jealous of their wives.” For their part,
young Canela women are taught by their kin to be accepting of obligatory sequential sex
rituals (Crocker and Crocker, 2004, p. 112). The concept of partible paternity manifests
itself in different ways in different cultures. For example, where post-marital residence is
virilocal, and/or where descent is patrilineal, infidelity is sanctioned, and restrictions exist
as to which males may share paternity (Ales, 2002; Chernela, 2002; Valentine, 2002). Even
where male-biased residence and kinship do not obtain, men and women are rarely given
free reign to their sexuality, and paternity is never a matter of unimportance (see
contributions in Beckerman and Valentine, 2002).
Although they are mentioned only in passing in their discussion of sexually liberal
societies, it’s worth pointing out that among the Trobriand Islanders, where Malinowski
(1929) tells us that men are thought to play no role in procreation, male sexual jealousy is
not lacking, to say the least. Also, the equivalent word for ‘promiscuous’ “is
perjorative…and generally applied to women” (Symons, 1979, p. 229).

[Anonymous No.18304089]

>>18304076
>and others have to try for months or years and still cant, and its not for lack of trying
Not him, but I suspect that the percentage of such couples who are under the age of 35 is very low.
>>18304070
It is interesting indeed that Ryan and Jethá approvingly cite some horticultural
societies (all partible paternity cultures in South America; the Trobriand Islanders;
Tahitians; Mohave) as affirming evidence of the sexually promiscuous nature of humans,
and a purported lack of universal concern over paternity, while at the same time rejecting
other horticultural societies as representative of ancestral humans in their discussion of
warfare on the grounds that they are not foragers. They are attempting to have their cake
and eat it, too. If socioecological conditions among horticulturalists render them not
appropriately comparable to foragers in the context of war, then a case could likely be
made that there is something about the socioecology that renders it inappropriate to
extrapolate from horticultural to forager sexuality. I do not intend to belabor this point
further, many readers can probably easily think of a few candidate variables, but it deserves
recognition.
The presentation of the ethnographic evidence comes to a climax with their
discussion of the Musuo (Na) of China and the sexual autonomy apparently conferred in
the multiple and transient açia relationships of men and women (pp. 126-131). This
matrilineal society is presented, in part, as a refutation of Symons’ (1979) doubts as to the
existence of a society where paternity certainty is so low that a man is typically more
related to his sister’s than to his wife’s offspring. The Musuo may very well be such a case,
we don’t know. However, Musuo “walking marriages” (açia) are only one form of sexual
relationship in this culture, with the other two involving long-term co-habitation of
husbands and wives (Blumenfield, 2009). It also bears mentioning that the primary
ethnographer describes the Musuo nobility as having traditionally practiced a bilateral
system of descent with wealth and status being transmitted from father to son (Hua,
2001)—hardly a situation where paternity certainty would have been a nonissue. Both of
these observations were left out of Ryan and Jethá’s discussion. The agricultural mode of
subsistence, and the historical socially stratified feudalism, raise doubts as to the ancestral representativeness of the Musuo.
In fact, of all the societies they offer as supporting evidence of a human nature of
promiscuous sexuality, only one can truly be considered a foraging population: the Inuit,
and it is unfortunate that Ryan and Jethá give only a brief anecdotal nod to the Inuit
practice of spouse exchange, leaving out the fact that “Among the North Alaskan Eskimo,
wife exchanges were arranged between the husbands, and the wives were not consulted”
(Symons, 1979, p. 246).

[Anonymous No.18304103]

>>18304089
Was meant to follow
>>18304079
Despite their proclamation that with the dawn of agriculture and the derivative
notion of private property, “for the first time in the history of our species, paternity became
a crucial concern” (p. 15, emphasis in original), and their description of an
“anthropological record so rich with examples of societies where biological paternity is of
little or no importance” (p.15), the survey of the ethnographic record given by Ryan and
Lethá does not lend itself readily to these suggestions. It fares little better in providing
support for a promiscuous human nature.
It appears that men everywhere take a proprietary attitude toward female sexuality
and strive to monopolize the reproductive resources of their mates (Wilson and Daly,
1992). Cross-culturally, adultery (particularly female infidelity) is the most common cause
of divorce (Betzig, 1989). Sexual jealousy is the predominant precipitating factor in lethal
and nonlethal violence against women (Daly and Wilson, 1988; Wilson and Daly, 1996),
and competition among men over women or the resources needed to attract them has been
the cause of much bloodshed in our species. These facts simply are not compatible with the
narrative put forth in Sex at Dawn.
But so much for ethnography. The authors have another source of evidence:
anatomy and psychology.
The first bit of phenotypic evidence of a history of human promiscuity introduced is
sexual dimorphism in body size (pp. 216-219). Pointing out that body-size dimorphism is
correlated with male competition for females, and that humans exhibit modest body-size
dimorphism, Ryan and Jethá surmise that this indicates reduced competition between
ancestral males for mates. Dismissing the “standard narrative” view that the reduction of
dimorphism tracks the evolutionary transition from polygyny to monogamy, they argue,
based on the mating systems of chimps and bonobos, and our phylogenetic relationship
with these apes, that the reduction of male-male competition was borne in upon an increase
in female promiscuity. Reduced dimorphism is also taken as evidence against the claim that
“humans are naturally polygynous harem-builders” (p. 217), as the means to support
multiple wives and children “simply did not exist before agriculture” (p. 217, emphasis in
original). In regard to the arguments put forth by Ryan and Jethá, two things are worth
considering. First, as Puts (2010) points out, human sex differences in size are affected by
the unique trait of female fat stores. When fat-free muscle is considered, differences
between male and female muscle mass is similar to that of gorillas. Second, if human males
are not inherently inclined to polygyny, how are we to explain the fact that at least some
degree of polygyny is to be found among the majority of extant foraging societies
(Marlowe, 2003)?

[Anonymous No.18304109]

>>18304103
Another piece of evidence given for a history of promiscuity is human male
testicular size (chapter 16: The Truest Measure of a Man). As noted by Ryan and Jethá, the volume of human testicles relative to body mass is intermediate between gorillas and
chimps, and this has been used to argue both sides of the debate over human promiscuity.
Recognizing that human testes size doesn’t implicate the levels of bonobo-like promiscuity
they see as characteristic of ancestral humans, they resort to the hypothesis that human
testes might have been shrinking since the end of the Pleistocene (more so in some racial
and ethnic groups than in others) as a result of the increased monandry accompanying an
agricultural mode of subsistence (pp. 226-227, 240-241). Fair enough, but this is a very
difficult hypothesis to test. Luckily, Ryan and Jethá claim that it has already been
confirmed! Referring to a paper by Wyckoff, Wang and Wu (2000) reporting that certain
genes involved in sperm and seminal fluid production in the lineages of humans, chimps,
and bonobos appear to have undergone quite rapid evolution changes. Ryan and Jethá
remark that this study by Wyckoff and colleagues “confirm a prediction made by Roger
Short…[that] ‘Testis size might be expected to respond rapidly to selection pressures”’ (p.
227). But nowhere in the Wyckoff et al. article do the authors mention anything about
genes influencing testes size.
Regarding females, many key features of women’s sexuality are given rather
cursory treatment and not analyzed as to how they fit in with the evolutionary scenario
presented in Sex at Dawn. For example, regarding concealed estrus, they restrict discussion
to the pair-bonding hypothesis as presented by Helen Fisher (p. 59), and the paternity
confusion hypothesis of Sarah Hrdy (pp. 59-60). Ryan and Jethá favor neither of these
hypotheses, and they leave the matter at that. On human female orgasm, they point out that
female orgasmic behavior has been observed in some primate species with multimalemultifemale mating systems, whereas the monogamous gibbon female does not exhibit
such behavior. Following this, Symons’ (1979) by-product argument is summarized, and a
few pages later, changes in vaginal acidity associated with orgasm are suggested as a
possible mechanism of sire choice (pp. 266-267). In their discussion of the unique trait of
perennially enlarged human female breasts, they favor some version of a fertility signaling
hypothesis, likening them to the sexual swellings of nonhuman primates. Human breasts,
like bonobo sexual swellings, do not change much over the course of the ovulatory cycle
(p. 261). Thus, the human breast is seen as evidence of a bonobo-like past. (See Marlowe,
1998 for an alternative hypothesis).

[Anonymous No.18304123]

>>18303991
Are you aware how an intercourse of an average couple on this planet goes?

Male and female fondle each other and kiss for a couple of minutes, then female gets on all fours for the easiest and most comfortable access, male puts it in, moves for a minute or two, and ejaculates. After a kiss or a pat, female presses her hand on her vulva to hold the semen inside, then lets it flow out in the bathroom, and washes herself. Alternatively, she keeps some rag or towel nearby to place under herself if she's still in bed.

[Anonymous No.18304128]

>>18304109
Chapter 20 (On Mona Lisa’s Mind) addresses the work of Meredith Chivers and
others showing the greater “erotic plasticity” of women compared to men. The reason for
the exposition of this body of research seems to be to show the complex and contextualized
nature of female sexuality that is not always revealed by responses to questionnaire items
and behavior in the laboratory; that the view of female sexuality contained in the “standard
narrative” is overly-narrow, and an artifact of the way and place it has been studied (see,
for example, p. 143). Reporting on the discrepancy between subjectively claimed arousal
and plethysmographically measured arousal found by Chivers, Ryan and Jethá state that “it
could well be that the price of women’s greater erotic flexibility is more difficulty in
knowing—and, depending on what cultural restrictions may be involved, in accepting—
what they’re feeling.” (pp. 273-274). Thus, females get aroused by all sorts of things
(including watching bonobo sex), they just don’t know it, nor might they want to accept it.
In response to this, we can ask the question of what plays a larger role in determining actual female behavior: conscious sexual desire, or genital blood pressure?
Greater female than male sexual plasticity had been known about long before
Chivers’ studies. Symons’ (1979, pp. 312-313) suggested that “the enormous range of
sexual variation observed among females may be primarily an artifact of artificial,
postagricultural habitats.” If female sexuality among our foraging ancestors had always
been, to some degree, constrained by males, the range of variability and potentials of
female sexuality would have been buffered to an extent from selection. Here we have two
opposing views on the effects of modern society on female sexual plasticity. Symons
argues that modern arrangements lift some of the constraints to reveal hidden potentials,
while Ryan and Jethá argue that it imposes constraints that hide potentials. One step toward
a resolution is to consider how constrained or liberated a typical female university student
in Western society is compared to her counterpart in a traditional foraging society? Ryan
and Jethá would have us believe it is the latter that is the less constrained, yet provide no
evidence that this is so. The prevalence of arranged marriage and prescribed marriage
partners among foragers suggest that it is not so (see Flinn and Low, 1986; Walker, Hill,
Flinn, and Ellsworth, 2011).

[Anonymous No.18304133]

>>18303254

[Anonymous No.18304141]

>>18304128
Scattered throughout Sex at Dawn are references to mate preference shifts and other
cycle-related behavioral changes associated with human estrus. None of the recent evidence
on estrus adaptations, however, suggests a history of promiscuity (defined by Ryan and
Jethá as a number of ongoing, nonexclusive sexual relationships). Rather, their
manifestations are highly contextualized and specific—estrus is not a generalized increase
in sexual interest or desire. Indeed, females are choosiest when most fertile (Gangestad and
Thornhill, 2008). In a thorough review of the available evidence, Thornhill and Gangestad
(2008) conclude that the primary selective pressures favoring such female estrus
adaptations were pair-bonding and dependence on male provisioning. Estrus adaptations
motivate sex outside the pair-bond only when it could pay-off genetically (i.e., when a
genetically superior male has been targeted, when the risk of detection is low, and when
conception is possible).
Much of the remaining material put forth as support for a promiscuous past
concerns male motivation for sexual variety (see especially pp. 288-298)—hardly an
indication of ancestral promiscuity. As Trivers (1972) and others (e.g., Symons, 1979) have
argued, a male desire for sexual variety is expected to be favored by selection even within a
monogamous mating system. Because the minimum possible investment in reproduction is
so much lower for males than females, any inclination to be on the lookout for
opportunities for the attainment of sexual variety and low-cost sexual encounters can bring
large reproductive pay-offs to men and will be favorably selected.

[Anonymous No.18304158]

>>18304141
The evidence contained in modern human male and female phenotypes that has
been, and continues to be, amassed, reveal an evolutionary history that was characterized
by a not insignificant amount of non-monogamous sexual behavior. To be sure, I doubt that
any serious evolutionary scientist, even the most ardent supporter of the “standard
narrative,” would argue that humans evolved in a milieu of perfectly monogamous pairbonds. This is patently not the case, and it defies evolutionary logic to assume so. Men and
women are genetic competitors with different available routes to reproductive success
(another lamentable element of the “standard narrative,” e.g., p. 49, 58, 270). There is considerable cross-cultural variation concerning such things as extramarital sex, premarital
sexual freedom, strength of marital bonds, and degree of female reproductive autonomy.
And sperm competition likely posed a selective pressure on ancestral males (Shackelford,
Pound, and Goetz, 2005). But to argue that the evidence points to the level of promiscuity
argued by Ryan and Jethá is to turn a blind eye to disconfirming, inconvenient facts, while
indulging in quite a bit of fantasizing. If promiscuity even slightly approaching bonobo
levels were characteristic of (post-Homo erectus) ancestral sexuality, there would be much
more evidence for it than Sex at Dawn manages to drum up. Ryan and Jethá conjure up a
phantom of human nature that vanishes in the face of scrutiny—a naïve vision of a human
that never evolved.
Monogamous pair-bonding is a strained compromise between male and female;
perhaps not the best of all possible worlds, but one in which most of our ancestors
evidently found themselves. It is in this sociosexual context that selection shaped who we
are today. It is true, as Sex at Dawn points out, that monogamy is difficult in modern
society, but doubtful that this is because we are promiscuous at heart (this may apply to the
behavior of most women more than the desire of most men), shackled by the trappings of a
postagricultural dilemma of our own devices, unable to return to the ancestral days of
sexual communism.
Is this book likely to open the eyes of scientists and make them realize that the
emperor has, for so long, not been wearing any clothes? Will it initiate a major revision of
perspective and research on the evolution of human sexuality among scientists? The answer
to both is “no.” But, as mentioned at the beginning of this review, books like Sex at Dawn
inform the wider public of the goings-on in academia. In this case, a distorted portrayal of
current theory and evidence on evolved human sexuality is presented, and for this reason it
deserves more attention from those on the inside.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/147470491100900305

[Anonymous No.18304166]

>>18304123
>doggystyle is the most comfortable
Really? My gf says she can't handle it for very long

[Anonymous No.18304178]

You can feel the absolute fear of having a responsibility for anything — not even having a family or a relationship, just laying together with someone — emanating from posters in this thread. No one needs that, not even you yourself, and no amount of reasoning would change it.

[Anonymous No.18304200]

Your girlfriend hints that you shouldn't forget to take care of her penis in the process.

[Anonymous No.18304217]

>>18304133
wrote less than the leftist who wrote reddit at dawn.

[Anonymous No.18304222]

>>18304166
missionary might be the most "vanilla" position but it's honestly the best. total control of dick thrusts, plus you can suck her tits and put your tongue down her throat. can't do that in doggy.

[Anonymous No.18304230]

>>18303271
Read Sex at Dusk and follow the sources from there.

[Anonymous No.18304233]

>>18304123
I always came on my gfs chest when I used to have sex

[Anonymous No.18304278]

>>18304222
Another virgin, another post on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.18304558]

>>18304278
People who refuse to engage in missionary, the only permissible position, that are full of shame and avoid eye contact. It is what scripture and theologians call the worm of conscience. Their worm shall not die. The shame they feel and try to avoid in this life, will gnaw away at them on earth and in hell. You attack virginity because you lost it, just like you've lost what should have been your final end, God.

[Anonymous No.18304568]

>>18304278
you only like doggy because you can pretend you're fucking man ass while having sex with a girl. faggot.

[Anonymous No.18304636]

>>18304123
It takes me at least fifteen minutes to climax. My wife usually does twice in that span.

[Anonymous No.18304693]

>>18302749
Unironically yes, he would know. Why do you think we've cultivated such an above the average analysis of sociology on this board? It's all a cope because we obsess over that which we don't naturally participate in. Our neurosis fuels our need for analysis.

[Anonymous No.18304751]

>>18301083
She's not alerting all men in the area, she's specifically calling out to see if a more alpha male is around to fuck up her current suitor and claim her. Women do not desire group sex, they desire the alpha. Same as any other creature.

This is also why kissing became a thing. Your best bet of keeping a woman quiet was muffling her ability to call out through a hand over the mouth. Kissing is a consensual hand over the mouth. You are silencing her while also leaving yourself vulnerable to have your face chewed up. Tongue in mouth even more so. These are indications that the sex is not unwanted or resisted, but actually desired.

[Anonymous No.18304777]

>>18304751
See
>>18304019
>>18304028
>>18304037
>>18304043
>>18304057
>>18304070
>>18304079
>>18304089
>>18304103
>>18304109
>>18304128
>>18304141
>>18304158

[Anonymous No.18304821]

>>18303945
If you're breast feeding you significantly lower your chance of getting pregnant again. This gives the baby a chance to grow and the mother the time to heal.

[Anonymous No.18304852]

>>18304278
Doggy is the most boring position. I literally always lose interest if a girl likes doggy. I have to spice it up by either pulling her up by the hair and/or neck into an arched back position or pushing her down into prone.

[Anonymous No.18305367]

From the txt:
>Marriage," "mating," and "love" are socially constructed phenomena that have little or no transferable meaning outside any given culture.

So yes, there premise holds true if you believe social interaction and behavior is somehow an unnatural trait.

If you discount society and culture of course, the nigger finally gets his precious equity

[Anonymous No.18305372]

>>18301106
There's no mention of bbc, how did you reach that conclusion?

[Anonymous No.18305377]

>>18302251
kek

[Anonymous No.18305392]

>>18301083
>The shape of your penis head is meant to scoop another dude's sperm out of her so yours gets to the egg.
>Women naturally scream during sex to alert other men in the area that it's going down, and to line up.
This is retarded

[Anonymous No.18305429]

>>18303765
All of these are effects of modern civilization. Are you a woman?

[Anonymous No.18305435]

>>18303330
if only you knew how wrong you were, bugman

[Anonymous No.18305451]

>>18303254

>and raises androgens leading to autism and homosexuality

You made a modicum of sense until this right here. Now I know youre just another poltard.

[Anonymous No.18305480]

>>18301106
yeah... I'M THINKING... BASED???

[Anonymous No.18305491]

>>18303254
dumbass, modern hunter gatherer society are almost all polyamourous

[Anonymous No.18305503]

>>18305491
See
>>18304019 (You)
>>18304028 (You)
>>18304037 (You)
>>18304043 (You)
>>18304057 (You)
>>18304070 (You)
>>18304079 (You)
>>18304089 (You)
>>18304103 (You)
>>18304109 (You)
>>18304128 (You)
>>18304141 (You)
>>18304158 (You)

[Anonymous No.18305515]

>>18302435
>if only you knew how bad things really are

[Anonymous No.18305928]

>>18305491

nah, they marry

[Anonymous No.18306793]

>>18305491
prove it

[Anonymous No.18306911]

What a shitshow lol

[Anonymous No.18306952]

>>18304278
If you never made your bitch cream on your dick while fucking missionary, your thrust game is weak and you don't know how to use your hips

[Anonymous No.18306968]

>>18301199
It's more reasonable than psychoanalysis

[Anonymous No.18306983]

>>18301643
Nah. Some of the progressives at my uni read and shill this book unironically, though.

[Anonymous No.18306985]

>>18303254
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.18307011]

>>18305429
How is feeling horny an effect of modern civilization? Are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.18307163]

>>18304158
Thanks for sharing.

[Anonymous No.18308216]

>>18301678
>specifically because of rape
No because of power (i.e. the use of leverage)

[Anonymous No.18308266]

>>18303833
sum it up for us. what did you find interesting.

[Anonymous No.18308576]

>>18305367
>Marriage," "mating," and "love" are socially constructed phenomena that have little or no transferable meaning outside any given culture.
This sounds like something a Communist would believe

[Anonymous No.18308695]

>>18301104
>for hundreds of thousands of years
We've only been on this earth for 40,000~ years

[Anonymous No.18309232]

>>18302383
i used to do this when i was 11. grown men acting like this is the cringiest thing ever

[Anonymous No.18309285]

>>18303254
> It is only through disgusting reinforcement of the sexual instinct they indulge in it which also causes physical damage to the fetus and raises androgens leading to autism and homosexuality.

can you explain this?

[Anonymous No.18309873]

>>18301083
>> All women like rough sex.
Why do so many women complain (online like twitter/reddit/etc) about men acting like 'jackhammers'?

[Anonymous No.18310252]

>>18306968
>psychoanalysis
even bro science is more reasonable than psychoanalysis

[Anonymous No.18310340]

>>18302413
>>18301101
Just to play Double's Vocado: It's easy to invent "common-sense" "just-so" stories within an Evolutionary Psychology framework; but that does not mean that they accurately model reality

[Anonymous No.18310504]

Based frat bros, nigs and rock bands running trains on whores like evolution intended

[Anonymous No.18310581]

>>18301083
Was this book written by incels?
Women don't scream during sex.
Also women can't orgasm - orgasm is a function of ejaculation, and women don't ejaculate.
Seems like the authors did their "research" by browsing pornhub.

[Anonymous No.18310628]

>>18303254
not reading your blogpost

[Anonymous No.18310643]

>>18301560
>pretending that guy has any problem getting laid

[Anonymous No.18310839]

>>18305491
this is a total myth

[Anonymous No.18310969]

>>18310581
>Also women can't orgasm - orgasm is a function of ejaculation
Based if true
When she demands to be finished off after you get your nut she’s just begging for attention

[Anonymous No.18311041]

>>18301729
Man that looks good...I need some chicken and dumplings in man life..with lots or course flaky salt

[Anonymous No.18311043]

>>18302806
>almost every religion
semitic desert cults are not religion, but brainrot.

[Anonymous No.18311112]

>>18303254
what about bonobos, they fuck all the time for no reason and frequently have lesbian sex

[Anonymous No.18311710]

>>18301141
Sounds exhausting. I'd rather harmoniously integrate it into myself.

[Anonymous No.18312701]

>>18304004
Cringe

[Anonymous No.18312796]

>>18306968
That isn't saying much

[Anonymous No.18312805]

>>18301083
>Sex the prehistorical origins at of modern sexuality dawn
What did he mean by this ?

[Anonymous No.18312818]

>>18301683
>OMG, thank you science! Me, my wife, her boyfriends, and Chad's son have been so enriched by this knowledge! I fucking love science!

[Anonymous No.18312839]

>>18309873
Because men have conditioned themselves from furtively watching porn while cohabiting to repress sound and expression. You look like a creepy automaton to her while fucking and she has no idea if you are enjoying it. It is the male equivalent of the starfish. Emote, express, and explicitly tell her what she is doing feels fucking awesome and turns you on. She's just as insecure as you that she isn't pleasing you and you are giving her zero feedback to prove otherwise.

Got that insight from fucking DFW of all people funnily enough, but it forever changed my sex life.

[Anonymous No.18314048]

>>18304133
Holy fucking based

[Anonymous No.18314321]

>>18303750
>I just want to kill girls
>It's all so tiring, and only killing girls will cheer me up at this point
Holy fucking based

[Anonymous No.18314662]

>>18309232
You were going around sexually harassing adult women at the age of 11?

[Anonymous No.18314898]

>>18301083
Isn't this book written by psychologists? What authority or knowledge do they even have on these subjects besides wanting to give basis to their degenerate fantasies? There's evidence of monogamy among hunter-gatherers, all this muh women were free dudeee we were all having orgies in the forest and worshipping the goddess brooo is nonsense.

[Anonymous No.18315549]

>>18304123
>Male and female fondle each other and kiss for a couple of minutes, then female gets on all fours for the easiest and most comfortable access, male puts it in, moves for a minute or two, and ejaculates.
I am now 100% sure this board is filled with literal virgins

[Anonymous No.18317176]

>>18308695
Earth is only 6000 years old, so how can we have been on this earth for 40,000 years...

[Anonymous No.18317251]

>>18302383
based

>>18303873
>>18309232
crige

[hungryman !!5BI0oSV9uvS No.18317487]

>>18301083
He got his doctorate from an online degree program a decade ago, when they were even more shitty than they are now. Sex at Dawn is an apologia about why he drives around in Mossimo (Target brand) tshirts in a dirty bus trying to seduce Zommer females that have been broken by nihilism.

You’d be better off reading the Gospels.

[Anonymous No.18317901]

>>18301106
B A S E D

[Anonymous No.18318524]

>>18301667
Kek

[Anonymous No.18319772]

>>18317487
Source for this?

[Anonymous No.18320412]

I cant believe this nonsense gets published.

[Anonymous No.18320429]

>>18302383
Americans and Brits probably wont understand, but if this happened in a real 1st world country (Australia) that guy would be lying dead in the gutter.

[Anonymous No.18320439]

>>18303254
I like how people can attempt to hold such detailed views on primitive life without the experience of primitive life.
Its all conjecture. Nothing but conjecture. You are a joke.

[Anonymous No.18320790]

Are there any evolutionary theories for why males need to insert the penis and then move in and out for a duration as opposed to simply inserting and immediately ejaculating?

[Anonymous No.18321360]

>>18320790
I ejaculate immediately after simply inserting into your mom.

[Anonymous No.18321380]

>>18321360
lol i fucked anons mom too. shes such a whore.

[Anonymous No.18321384]

>>18303254
Sounds about right.

[Anonymous No.18321400]

>>18301083
>>When she orgasms, the pussy seals up to hold the victorious sperm inside her.

[Anonymous No.18321416]

>>18303351
Your circumcised dick is abnormal