Sexual selection

[Anonymous No.12124185]

Peter Frost claims that around the end of the last major ice age (Young Dryas which ended around 8000-7000 bc), male population was an extremely small portion of the population. men to women ratio at around 8000 bc was estimated to be 1:17 in europe and northern asia. so for every man there were 17 women.

This period led to an extreme selection pressure for women. He claims that blonde hair blue eyes are so much more common among women than in man because man find women with lighter features to be more attractive while women find men with darker features more attractive. Due to the fact that there were so few men around, only women with lighter hair and eyes would successfully breed, leading to large differences in colours between men and women in northern european population.

Also he claims that in pretty much all human socieites, people with lighter skin occupy higher strata while darker people occupy lower strata because men with higher status choose to marry women with lighter features, and men with lower status marry darker women.

According to templer (2006) skin lightness and iq correlates at 0.92. Also according to Woodley, IQ correlates weakly with hair brightness and eye colour brightness.

[Anonymous No.12124195]

>>12124185
Why are you, like all incels, obsessed with women if you never have sex with them because they find you repulsive? Be obsessed with something else that is more suitable for you.

[Anonymous No.12124221]

>>12124185
Sounds like bullshit, a man can EASILY get 17 different women pregnant. In pre-civilization where marriage isn't a thing Men would have issues knocking up all those excess women regardless of some petty shit like hair or skin color.

[Anonymous No.12124225]

>>12124221
*Men WOULDN'T have issues

[Anonymous No.12124232]

>>12124221
women who don't get resources and protection from men would die out

[Anonymous No.12124241]

>>12124185
Nigga I can seed 17 bitches in less than a day what are smoking? I swear this goddamn whitebois don't know shit

[Anonymous No.12124256]

>>12124185
Is there DNA evidence for this? Or is this just a nutball claim?

[Anonymous No.12124261]

>>12124185
>Also he claims that in pretty much all human socieites, people with lighter skin occupy higher strata while darker people occupy lower strata because men with higher status choose to marry women with lighter features, and men with lower status marry darker women.

That's socio-economic my dude. If you we're pale that meant you didn't spend a lot of time outdoors, which in the pre-industrial era means that you we're wealthy and/or an aristocrat and therefore more desirable.

[Anonymous No.12124446]

>>12124232
In pre-civilization?
Unlikely. Women are biologically inferior to Men in many ways, but they aren't retarded in practical terms and they have just as much survival instinct as males. A pre-civilization woman might not thrive without Male resources, but she could certainly find enough to survive.

The biggest threat to her would be predation.

But that is all moot because humans are pack animals and pretty much have been for millions of years. No woman is going to be out on her own trying to survive.

In reality what OP's scenrio would like is a tribe of 3-4 males and 30-50 females + their young. That might introduce a little selective pressure but not enough to make an entire new phenotype like light hair and skin. Chimpanzee troops are not too far from those numbers, they usually have a slightly less skewed ratio of sex of ultimately they usually consist of 5-10 males with 20-30 females and young. So it's entirely possible for such groups to have been common in pre-history, almost guaranteed in fact.

[Anonymous No.12124474]

>>12124256
There's no way this is true. There are still hunter gatherer tribal societies today, and they have roughly equal numbers of men and women.

[Anonymous No.12124481]

>>12124195
My first thought
>>12124221
My second thought

[Anonymous No.12124563]

>>12124446
this, we wuz literally chimps just weaker

[Anonymous No.12124954]

By what mechanism does the natural nearly 1:1 proportion of men to women become 1:17? Presumably active population control (culling?)

Wouldn't literally any tribe that doesn't cull their men be able to effortlessly take out any tribe that does?

Sounds like a retarded hypothesis

[Anonymous No.12124974]

>>12124954
great famine. all the men died hunting. at the en of the ice age regular hunting animals such as mammoth w

[Anonymous No.12124980]

>>12124974
mammoth and shit went extinct

and in pretty much all societies there are many more women than men

[Anonymous No.12124996]

>>12124954
>By what mechanism does the natural nearly 1:1 proportion of men to women become 1:17?
That's only at birth. Historically, even as late as the middle twentieth century, there were usually slightly more Women than Men by the post-pubescent stage. In pre-history this was likely more pronounced due to factors such as predation, violence between tribal bands, Men generally leading harsher and more dangerous lives/taking more risks, and Women being physiologically more resilient to disease/poor genetics than Men (along with decreased risk factors for both). In the era of Civilization this has been more due to warfare and Men working riskier occupations. But historically speaking it's usually about 1 Man to every 3 women. Even as late as the 1950's this was the case, and it's part of the reason why Men of the past had a much easier time securing a wife and family if they survived to adulthood. It's also why prostitution used to be a major thing (women who couldn't find a husband had to survive somehow), same with harems for that matter. Basically Men are more likely to die and more likely to die young at that; the survivors get their pick of the Women and the rest either become some rich nobles side piece or fuck for money to survive.

Really the modern incel epidemic (and I say this as someone who would probably qualify as an incel) is because all the guys who would likely have died off in the past due to wars/predation/starvation/disease/dangerous jobs/etc are instead sitting in their parents basement facing very little/no risk from either warfare or disease (thanks to modern medicine). Normally even in a hypergamous society inceldom shouldn't be a huge issue because there is supposed to be a surplus of mating age Men naturally but humans have fucked that all up.

[Anonymous No.12125026]

>>12124446
So the Greeks were right about there being femle led societies in the before times

[Anonymous No.12125029]

>>12124980
>and in pretty much all societies there are many more women than men
Not China, but that's an obvious exception...

[Anonymous No.12125290]

>>12125026
That I highly doubt, baring some really bizarre circumstances. Human males are physically much stronger and more violent than our females. No Human male (or to be more specific, no pre-History Human male who is basically one step up from an animal) is going to allow a Female to call the shots. Any pre-History human tribe/group/pack is going to be Male-led and dominated simply by the nature of our species sexual differences. Even in Modern times the idea of Women being in power is really more of an elaborate illusion than a reality.

[Anonymous No.12125399]

>>12125290
There are many native indian tribes in south america that are matriarchal.

Remember reading about them and hailed as a paragon of feminism. Funny the stupid feminists didn't realize that those tribes have existed for tens of thousands of years and are still walking around naked hunting with sticks

[Anonymous No.12125412]

>>12124185
Pure bullshit as there are blondes in Melenesia

[Anonymous No.12125416]

>>12125026
Hahaha no, the further back in time you go the more violent and rapey men get.

[Anonymous No.12125417]

>>12125399
Most "matriarchal" societies like Amazonian tribes and IIRC a couple of Tibetan villages, are only a matriarchy in the sense that the Females lead religious and ceremonial roles akin to something like head of the tribe, their control is more based on respect for the elderly matron rather than actual force. Basically, "matriarchal" tribes are based on soft power, where familial ties and cultural norms encourage following a female leader but not actually forcing the males to do so. It's also worth noting that all such tribes are in extremely isolated circumstances, deep Mountain passes, deep in the Jungle, etc. If those tribes or groups came into contact with Male dominated tribes their "matriarchal" structure would fall apart pretty quickly as the strongest male(s) take control of the situation in order to save the tribe.

Tl;dr, "matriarchy" in human civilizations isn't true matriarchy (the females cannot actually force the males to comply), and they only continue their unusual social structure because they have no competitive pressure to do otherwise.

Pic related is obviously not a scientific study and probably exaggerates the situation, but it illustrates my point. Men are simply better built for survival and leadership and 9/10 they are dominant because of it. This isn't a sexist thing either, I don't think Women are inferior, but their biological role is conclusively DIFFERENT than the Male role and it is not hard wired for strong leadership.

[Anonymous No.12125419]

if women were the bigger sex then matriarchy would be possible

[Anonymous No.12125428]

>>12125419
Men would just gang up on the amazons then rape them. A manlet can beat the shit out of a tall girl.

[Anonymous No.12125452]

>>12125428
Bigger not just taller. Thicker and they weigh more and such. If humans were like pic related we would be matriarchal. and it would be better for everyone desu.

[Anonymous No.12125458]

>>12125452
>better for everyone
fuck off cumbrain.

[Anonymous No.12125471]

>>12125458
How would it not be?
Men can no longer rape women, women no longer have to fear men or fear walking around at night and gain control over reproductive rights and everything, while women themselves aren't going to be cruel or mean or anything to men because of their maternal instincts. We aren't hyenas, we're bonobos.

[Anonymous No.12125493]

>>12125452
just taller is fine for me, I don't want to see more excuses for obesity in the present day

[Anonymous No.12125507]

>>12124185
sounds like thinly veiled fap material mixed with some pol ideology that someone stuck the word science on

[Anonymous No.12125511]

>>12125452
Even that honestly wouldn't make a difference. You are thinking in terms of absolute mass but really it's muscle/bone density, physiological layout, etc, that make Men "stronger." Men's muscles are like 60% more dense than Women's. Our body layout is both more efficient for applying force and better able to deflect blows and damage. Hell, we are able to run faster, jump higher, and punch harder. Males are also psychologically just more hard wired for violence, both giving and receiving. You put a Male, even a "beta male" in a survival situation, and he will unleash that killer instinct inside of a day, maybe even a few hours. Women just aren't like that. They are hard wired for in-group survival and socialization, they generally lack violent instinct even in situations where it's imperative for survival.

Even if Women were physically taller and more massive Men's biological and psychological state would still let them subdue any Woman who tries to force them to do something against their will.

>>12125471
>maternal instincts
Uh, have you been paying attention the last 20 years? A Woman's "maternal instincts" only apply to her immediate family, often only her immediate children. Women have zero empathy for strangers, even if they do their best to hide that fact under a visage of social conformity.

There is a reason bonobos are relatively unsuccessful in development compared to Chimpanzees (chimps have been known to utilize simple tools like spears and fire, bonobos do not; chimps have an easier time surviving, etc). It's also worth noting that recent studies indicate that bonobos are not actually as matriarchal as researchers previously thought; they have a ridiculously complex social structure compared to chimps so it's hard to tell.

[Anonymous No.12125545]

>>12125511
>Uh, have you been paying attention the last 20 years? A Woman's "maternal instincts" only apply to her immediate family, often only her immediate children. Women have zero empathy for strangers, even if they do their best to hide that fact under a visage of social conformity.
wrong, incel

[Anonymous No.12125576]

>>12125545
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.12125580]

>>12125576
Making up a lie about the current state of affairs and women is not an argument.
Nothing you wrote is true, so I don't need an argument to rebuke it, incel.

[Anonymous No.12125583]

>>12125545
It's literally true tho.
Women rarely care for children/people outside of their family. This is a good thing tho.

[Anonymous No.12125602]

tl;dr white is right

[Anonymous No.12125605]

>>12124185
This is a disguised BBC thread, The "women prefer darker men" gives it away :)

[Anonymous No.12125610]

>>12125583
>If a woman sees a hurt child or small creature she wont care because it's not hers
If you actually think this, you're an idiot. This is like the DEFINING feature of women as a sex, their innate and unrelenting need to care for small things

[Anonymous No.12125655]

>>12125511
>A Woman's "maternal instincts" only apply to her immediate family, often only her immediate children.
False. I'm pretty fucked up and in studying developmental psychology recently, I realized what happened with me is a failure to establish roles with my mother. I was as a parent, a sibling, a friend, a stranger, and vaguely, even a spouse. I was morphed into everything and anything as needed, and all at once. The result is I never truly "individuated" and became an actual person. People in my everyday life can't tell, because I'm not needy, not a mommy's boy, etc. I'm simply nothing, there is something fundamentally missing inside.

The relevance of this. I finally realized throughout most of my life, especially more recently, I have functioned by subtly positioning other people into the role of either a parent, or a child, with very little in between. With women of all ages I will subtly coerce them into a maternal figure, and most of them do have it in them, and naturally accept it. Most people do for that matter. It's hard to put into words, but you are completely and absolutely wrong. I come to people as a child does, and this facilitates rapid bonding and causes them to tolerate a large range of discussion and behaviors they would otherwise reject.

>Women have zero empathy for strangers
Empathy is far too vague. Most people have very little empathy for anyone. Conscience is also distinct from empathy,

[Anonymous No.12125691]

>>12125471
>We aren't hyenas, we're bonobos.
Female bonobos arent bigger. Female hyenas are.
Build and behaviour are related : if female humans were bigger they would make use of it and thus be violently dominant like men and female hyenas. If they had no use for being bigger they would not be bigger.

[Anonymous No.12125700]

>>12125580
Present an argument or fuck off

>>12125655
Your personal issues don't really qualify as evidence. I acknowledge that it's probably too sweeping to say "all women are incapable of having empathy for anyone outside their immediate family," but in my personal experience (just for comparison, not saying my experience is indicative of the statistical norm) women tend to be far less caring and empathetic than Men. In my experience Women tend to only present a public face of maternal instinct/caring for others, but really they are doing it for social approval (in more /pol/ tier terms, virtue signaling basically).

I don't have any sources to present on the topic (because it's something that would never get seriously studied due to political sensitivity), but I seriously doubt Women "aren't going to be cruel or mean or anything to men because of their maternal instincts." In my personal experience Women are more cruel, not less than, Men. They might not physically harm others as much, but make no mistake that Women are capable of cruelty and inflicting pain in ways Men wouldn't even consider.

>>12125691
I agree with this as well, something I hadn't considered in my posts, but even if Women were physically more capable than Men it would change their whole psychological make up into something different. They wouldn't act or think like actual human Women.

[Anonymous No.12125714]

>>12124996
>historically speaking it's usually about 1 Man to every 3 women. Even as late as the 1950's this was the case
source?

[Anonymous No.12125725]

>>12125691
there are many mammal species where the female is larger and they dont dominate nor are they cruel to males. Hyena's are a rare exception. I see no reason to think human women would be cruel to men if they were the bigger sex

[Anonymous No.12125729]

>>12125700
>women tend to be far less caring and empathetic than Men.
Relative to what? That's the key, context. Women lack any stable conception of honor, or sport. Thus if you groom and position them in leadership roles they tend to become psychopathic and sadistic. A man will best you and then dominate you in whatever way fits the structure he's heading, he'll mor elikely try to make use of you than he will maim or kill you off in the modern world. A woman however will either take sadistic pleasure in tormenting and discarding her opponent, or she'll put her boot to your throat. She has to really, if you think about it.

The word empathy is the problem. It's not about the capacity or tendency to experience what you believe to be someone else's emotions.

[Anonymous No.12125756]

>>12124954
constant infighting between tribes results in very high male mortality, particularly the young males.

[Anonymous No.12125759]

If OP’s theory is right, shouldn’t he have posted an attractive dark girl? Trying to get attention from low status males, and all?

[Anonymous No.12125760]

>>12124185
Sounds like speculation. Doesn't smell like science.

[Anonymous No.12125834]

>>12125452

[Anonymous No.12125873]

>>12125756
I see, nice fringe theory with zero archeological, epigraphic, or for that matter any evidence whatsoever

[Anonymous No.12126036]

>>12125873
I'm not saying its 1:17 or even 1:2
but wow, a round of applause for you
for you would have to be exceptionally stupid to make a post like that.
You seem like the type to ask for sources on literally every common sense interpretation or basic connection that literally everyone (everyone but you) understands intuitively, over and over again - constantly, even though you are far too stupid and lazy to understand the sources when you are presented with them.
What a pathetic little joke of a human being you must be.
Fucking ambulance chasing sleaze...

[Anonymous No.12126094]

>>12125290
In the hunting era, men and women roles where tougher; it wasn't until the agriculture era that women became more feminine and stay at home like(bigger hips, less muscles, bigger breasts,etc)

[Anonymous No.12126098]

>>12126094
Meaning, that the packs where almost equally led by both females and makes.

[Anonymous No.12126105]

>>12126098
meaning that >>12126094 is full of shit because it takes millions of years for sexes to differentiate due to evolution and men have been bigger and more muscular than women since far before agriculture

[Anonymous No.12126128]

>>12126105
Dude, search it up. Agriculture changed most people on the genetic level even dogs were changed. They are also fossils showing women having less female like appearance in their skeletal structure, fossils that came from the hunting era (smaller hips, denser bones, etc)

[Anonymous No.12126146]

>>12126128
You need to show that women were nothing less than 100% equal to men physically for your argument to not be completely worthless.

[Anonymous No.12126150]

>this thread is still up despite being an obviously retarded """theory""" coming from a literal nobody in the field

[Anonymous No.12126192]

>>12126146
Hence, almost(naturally speaking females tend to be weaker to males). But their pack were not male dominated. They were more like lion's prides. They simply couldn't afford to have death weight, it's common sense bro. We are not vegans like chimps and Gorrillas, where getting food is easy and have no need for females to do heavy lifting as getting stuff to eat is relativity easy so they can get male dominated packs. But in a hunting pack everyone has to put their 2 cents causing for the packs to be more equal as having females with weak bodies isn't beneficial to the pack. They might have been alphas but the packs and males in general wouldn't assert dominant type behavior, it would be more leadership like that dominant.

[Anonymous No.12126209]

>>12126192
it wasnt just hunting though
it was hunting AND gathering, and the women did the gathering
humans ate a lot of berries, fruits, and veggies long before agriculture

[Anonymous No.12126239]

>>12124185
So why are their so many men now? We had plenty of wars over the past 4000 years and the population always rebounded quickly.

>>12125452
>and it would be better for everyone desu.
You're making the assumption that women would be less violent or ruthless in their survival tactics. Woman can actually be quite ruthless, men just happen to be stronger on average. There's enough examples of female leaders becoming ruthless killers through out history to make me think woman being stronger would be a bad thing for week woman.

[Anonymous No.12126245]

This thread is so fucking dumb but Anna Sofia is such great eye candy I don’t even mind seeing it bumped, gj OP

[Anonymous No.12126246]

If most groups of people were smallish and had say 100 women to every 10 men, there would be very little need for the men to be soldiers. It wouldn't neccassarily make the women be in charge but they would probably have a much larger role culturally and in decision making just due to there being so many of them.

[Anonymous No.12126250]

>>12126209
Agreed, I was going to mention gathering but the guy might have interpret it as something else and might have used it against me. It is also strongly believe that females where the ones that found agriculture. Only further proving the point that the roles were balanced, and there wasn't such thing as a male asserting dominate over something. I think humans ,out of all the great apes, are the most passive towards females, it is also a reason why we were so close to wolf considering that they had a similar way of living as us.

[Anonymous No.12126260]

>>12126246
>>12126250
fair points

[Anonymous No.12126263]

>>12126209
Females also did hunting, hunting large mammals requires a lot of people.

[Anonymous No.12126273]

Do you incels just ever shut the fuck up about women? Always so obsessed with them yet you also claim they're inferior
>but in the Le monkey tribes...
I'd fucking kill you with a stone to your skull and have the women cook you so we could feed the dogs. Now fuck off.

[Anonymous No.12126284]

>>12126263
Hunting is also NOT a major source of sustenance for the large majority of so-called “hunter gatherers”.

Shitty meme-tier paleoanthropology

[Anonymous No.12126291]

>>12126284
>Hunting is also NOT a major source of sustenance

Stop putting every tribe on the face of the planet into a box.

[Anonymous No.12126325]

>>12124954
Tribes optimized into civilizations and with it males became less expendable. A male human has much more value to a larger group/organisation/civilization than he does to a smaller tribe/band of 100 or so.
It's also interesting to think about how monogamy plays into this, as in monogamy/1:1 pairing is also much better for civilization/human organisation at a cost to evolution/nature.

[Anonymous No.12126344]

>>12126291
Average HG band kills 2.3 large mammals per year.
There are outliers like Inuit, but there are actually more pre-modern societies that don’t hunt at all than ones that rely on hunting for a majority of their calories at any time.

[Anonymous No.12126346]

>>12126325
>Tribes optimized into civvies

Wrong, please try reading any of the last 70 years worth of anthropology and try again

[Anonymous No.12126352]

>>12126325
I did a little tight reading into this not long ago. Even as far back as Mesopotamia monogamy was the norm. And then you have the fact that many conquering armies started to spare useful artisan men like black smiths and carpenters its no wonder we've ended up where we are. Heck, even farmers would be spared in some cases because they needed serfs to farm the land.

[Anonymous No.12126360]

>>12126352
>Even as far back as Mesopotamia monogamy was the norm.

Assyriologist here, I would LOVE for you to prove this to me.

[Anonymous No.12126401]

>>12126360
Not really in the mood to go digging of the genetic research papers and ancient text studies I came across.

[Anonymous No.12126480]

>>12126401
>ancient text studies

Just give me the vague outline, I can fill in the rest, this is literally my expertise, I’m writing my dissertation on gender roles in the 1st Babylonian Empire.

I think people reading ancient texts very often make significant interpretive errors based on contemporary social biases. I can think of ONE argument for evidence of widespread monogamous marriage in ancient mesopotamia and it isn’t a strong one.

[Anonymous No.12126557]

>>12126346
>Wrong, please try reading any of the last 70 years worth of anthropology and try again
please explain I'm too busy to read 70 years worth of monkey books

[Anonymous No.12126571]

>>12126360
I imagine he's basing it off the Code of Hammurabi. With penalties up to death for adultery and homosexuality, as well as false testimony, I doubt it was common or accepted overall.

[Anonymous No.12126589]

>>12126571
>With penalties up to death for adultery and homosexuality, as well as false testimony
based

[Anonymous No.12126701]

>>12125452

[Anonymous No.12126735]

>>12126557
ANY OF, not all of.
But basically, optimization theory has not been taken seriously since the 60s, demolished by Sahlins, Lee, etc. People are not economic maximization engines, especially not in traditional societies. Culture determines behavior, not any calculus of efficient returns.

Also, large-scale surplus agriculture (“urban civilization”) was definitively NOT a step forward in such terms anyways. Foragers and pastoral nomads had vastly better nutrition and health than agriculturalists. More calories per ‘work’ hour, varied diets, minimal labor, etc. The neolithic caused human health and quality of life to nose-dive for millennia. It was not adopted for reasons of optimization, it was disastrous for whole societies. Pandemics, bone disease, famines from crop failure, nutritional deficiencies, teeth fucked up from cereal grindstones, avg height shrunk by a foot, etc.

Read Graeme Barker’s The Agricultutal Revolution in Prehistory, or Scott’s Against the Grain.

[Anonymous No.12126755]

>>12126571
>literally using paraphrased summaries of translations from the 1880s

Protip: people read what they want hear. The fucking code of hammurabi does not mention “homosexuality” at all. There was no such concept in the language. The cuneiform is not unambiguous, and upper-class christian men from the 19th century were frankly not all that great at keeping their prejudices and expectations out of their linguistics.

[Anonymous No.12126825]

>>12124185
That's the most retarded hypothesis I've seen on this board for a while. Congrats anon, there's considerable competition.

[Anonymous No.12127074]

>>12125725
Human women are already cruel to men while being smaller. Did you forget what school was like? Or what drives men to have to beat their wives in marriages?

[Anonymous No.12127163]

>>12126735
civilization is not an optimization towards economics, physical law or human well being, it's a optimization towards power. What is power? it's the amount of human activity the system can control through one way or another.

[Anonymous No.12127168]

>>12124185
>Peter Frost claims
stopped reading there desu.

[Anonymous No.12127192]

>>12124446
>But that is all moot because humans are pack animals and pretty much have been for millions of years.
Humans were nomadic up until the first neolithic revolution which was only ~11000 YA you uneducated dolt

[Anonymous No.12127421]

>>12127192
Ah yes, because nomadic Man didn't travel in tribes/packs or socialize whatsoever, that shit just magically happened at some point before civilization and agriculture popped up.

Humans and nearly all our hominid ancestors for millions of years have been pack animals you massive fucking pedantic retard.

[Anonymous No.12127699]

If blond haired blue eyed people were so intelligent then why do they have zero civilizations in their homeland?

[Anonymous No.12127712]

>>12127074
Because of patriarchy. If women were bigger and thus patriarchy couldn't even develop, then women wouldn't behave like that.

[Anonymous No.12127713]

>>12124195
The only correct response to this schizophrenia.
/thread

[Anonymous No.12128110]

>>12125026
Greeks hated women and viewed them as inhuman when it suited then.

[Anonymous No.12128232]

>>12124195
>Why are you, like all incels, obsessed with women if you never have sex with them because they find you repulsive?
why do you think? they have no access to them and they spend their day obsessing about them, which not very surprisingly reinforces them further in their situation

[Anonymous No.12128265]

>>12124195
>>12127713
>>12128232
Out of the 40 unique posters in this thread, I bet not a single one is a virgin or an incel.
Stop being stupid faggots. You're not smart, nor cool, nor tough.

[Anonymous No.12128274]

>>12128265
>I bet not a single one is a virgin or an incel.
Thats a bold bet, theres likely many of them, altough i do agree that not all. Most of them must be your average loser who barely got a bit of sexual experience by using all of their might and now they think they know how the world works.

They arent incels technically but their experience is so small its basically the same, worst than that it gives them the illusion of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.12128280]

>>12124185
The vikings would go on raids and when they were burning down villages and plundering if there was a 10/10 girl they'd just take them home and rape them. Lots of attractive blonde scandanavian girls.

[Anonymous No.12128439]

>>12124185
Maybe correlation is caused by the fact that nice people get nice things easier, therefore even education.

[Anonymous No.12128498]

>>12124232
They will just cooperate with other women. See female prisons.

[Anonymous No.12128532]

>>12126036
I like you anon, you have the semblance of a man done with tribalists and ready to respond in kind rather than wasting your time humouring them when they won't return the favour.

[Anonymous No.12128548]

>>12125458
>fuck off cumbrain.
whats wrong with that to feel teh pressrue yes yesy rhick ties tittiets yes yes strong hard against softa against press tongues interwtine and penis inside hole soft masage pleasure pleasure lick skin soft skins against skin hard and tight and soft and caress and grab and pull inside in out explosion of pleasure all the cum goes from the balls to the tip of the penis goes out in great pressure and once it goes out its inside the pussy, inside going to the bottom of the uterus, cum in all holes impregnate cares oral sex yes yes yes

whats wrong with this? do you not want this? the goal of society is to provide peace so that everyone can experience this a smuch as possible

[Anonymous No.12128562]

>>12128548
daily reminder that anal and oral are ok just as anticipation to impregantion cum unprotected insidef ertile pussy

[Anonymous No.12128710]

>>12124185
SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX

[Anonymous No.12128726]

>>12124185
> 1:17 mf ratio
> sexual selection
More likely, the other 16 men died fighting for all that delish pussy and were surrounded by harems.

[Anonymous No.12129080]

>>12125417
Based. Also nice image. (••)

[Anonymous No.12129264]

daily reminder that skin color and iq correlate .92. with lighter = higher.

[Anonymous No.12129626]

>>12128726
no they died hunting.

there were famine through the world at the end of iceage

[Anonymous No.12130032]

>>12128532
Thank you! I like you back for saying so.

[Anonymous No.12130049]

>>12129264
remember that IQ is litterally IQ a racist measurement of intelligence.

[Anonymous No.12130384]

>>12128265
>Out of the 40 unique posters in this thread, I bet not a single one is a virgin or an incel.
Lmfao. I would bet about 70% at my most conservative estimate, including OP.

[Anonymous No.12130428]

>>12130049
Only because it offends the large coalition of liars who blame society for natures harsh treatment of them.

[Anonymous No.12130431]

>>12124185

fuck bros, i wanna marry and treat this girl well. take her out for cinema and surprise her for valentine.

[Anonymous No.12130433]

>>12130431

what is stopping you? you can do this to a girl everyday, treat her nicely and she will good back.

[Anonymous No.12130435]

>>12130433

cant bro, I'm married and need to treat my own girl nicely.

[Anonymous No.12130436]

>>12130435

isnt you talking about another girl a bit unfaithful? keep your mind on your own family.

[Anonymous No.12130438]

>>12130436
sorry, its just fantasy, my mind is always on my own girl. she is great in "different" ways.

[Anonymous No.12130486]

>>12124221
And what are these pre-civilization single mothers going to do? Stable family structures are vital for hunter-gatherers. Maybe not quite monogamy, but definitely an extended family in which everybody is related to everybody else.

[Anonymous No.12130531]

>>12124980
Not if you look at the age range that matters (16-35).
Here in Germany even before 2015 we had more men than women, but overall more women than men cause men die earlier, but who tf cares about some 85 year old grandma, as a man you are interested in women 16-35 and for each of those women you have roughly 3 men, hence it's war out there and women precious ressources. Due to the rapefugee crisis it's even worse.

[Anonymous No.12130564]

>>12125545
the effect exists, but I don’t remember reading about any gender differences.
Empathy is stronger for genetically related people.

[Anonymous No.12130589]

>>12126360
oh come on, you can’t just pick the most violent and cruel civilization.

[Anonymous No.12130603]

>>12130049
tfw IQ test made by blacks maintain the same differences.

[Anonymous No.12131400]

>>12130531
What countries have the highest woman to man ratio?

[Anonymous No.12131413]

>>12131400
Russia because of world War 2

[Anonymous No.12131430]

what is it with racists and thinking the darkies are highly masculine but retarded while whites are not masculine but smart? james watson and few other scientists with questionable views had the exact same ideas, literal cuckoldry that's probably based on anecdotes.
anyway there is literally no proof of this, science consensus about light color hair/eyes is that they offer an advantage in areas that have little sun, thus they became dominant in those areas.

[Anonymous No.12131448]

>>12131413
drinking and/or driving seems to be the difference maker.

[Anonymous No.12131512]

>>12130486
>these pre-civilization single mothers going to do? Stable family structures are vital for hunter-gatherers. Maybe not quite monogamy, but definitely an extended family in which everybody is related to everybody else.

You are deeply confused about hg band social dynamics

[Anonymous No.12131536]

>>12131413
I should visit Russia...

[Anonymous No.12131556]

>>12131430
Black males are seen as bigger than they are

[Anonymous No.12132570]

>>12124185
He's right but the IQ correlations are mostly bunk.

Darker people have lower IQ because darker people are primarily African. Ancestry, not color, is the prime driver of IQ difference.

He's definitely right about the sexual selection and elite selection though. High status men prefer whiter women (and features that tend morphologically Mongoloid--flatter butt, less exaggerated sexual features, etc). When society becomes matriarchal, dark genes and Caucasoid features proliferate.

Whiteness is a superficial form of Mongoloidism. Every single feature that is enhanced by whiteness, is also enhanced by Mongoloidness but in a more fundamental and less superficial way. Moreover, Europeans are literally more Mongoloid than Arabs in every morphological respect (bigger heads, less face hair, higher trunk:leg ratio, higher canthal tilt etc). The most progressive form of human is a blue eyed, blonde haired Siberian/Northern Chinese.

[Anonymous No.12132581]

>>12132570
>Ancestry, not color, is the prime driver of IQ difference
Explain African Americans having low iq then?
>inb4 systemic racism/slavery
Even African Americans who come from financially successful backgrounds with full access to educational opportunities are several iq points below their white and asian peers on average.

[Anonymous No.12132591]

>>12131430
cope. facts don't care about your feelings.

Black males are seen as more masculine, taller than they are, all DESPITE having less facial hair and higher estrogen than whites. They're also dumb as fuck, and their IQs are even lower than you think >>12132570

Dark just makes masculine in the mammalian world. Even lions think so.
https://knowledgenuts.com/2013/12/28/the-darker-the-mane-the-more-powerful-the-lion/

Birds have the opposite mating structure because they are free to move around so the females have more mate choice. Mammals can't fly, so our mating system revolves around controlling female sexuality. The women evolve to prefer men of higher aggression, instead of men with more objectively pleasant looks.

[Anonymous No.12132596]

>>12132581
>Explain African Americans having low iq then?
African Americans have low IQ because they're African.

>Even African Americans who come from financially successful backgrounds with full access to educational opportunities are several iq points below
yeah no shit, faggot. Africans have lower IQs you flaming fucking poid.

[Anonymous No.12132626]

>>12124185
Yes it was just like my harem anime. On the serious note, ratio between sexes was always close to 50:50 and anyone who doubts that should learn high school biology

[Anonymous No.12132646]

>>12132626
>ratio between sexes was always close to 50:50
Imagine all these women dying in wars.

[Anonymous No.12132710]

>>12124221
Men understood the need to provide food and shelter for all those children.

How do you think the ratio stayed at 1:17 despite births being 1:1?

[Anonymous No.12132750]

>>12132591
youre the one attempting to cope

[Anonymous No.12132822]

>>12132750
amazing rebuttal

[Anonymous No.12132841]

>>12126701
source?

[Anonymous No.12132858]

>>12124185
>men to women ratio at around 8000 bc was estimated to be 1:17 in europe and northern asia
Retarded. In hard times men are more valuable, not less.

[Anonymous No.12132878]

>>12132858
that's the point. men were more necessary in harsh northern climates.

So sexual selection on men was relaxed. Sexual selection on women increased.

[Anonymous No.12132891]

>>12132878
>Sexual selection on women increased.
No, sexual selection pressure decreases with fewer options to choose from.

[Anonymous No.12132934]

>>12132891
Nope, men will die more often due to dangerous hunts.

Additionally, their bargaining power is already higher because there are fewer plants at that latitude. Most of the diet is animal based, which can only be procured by males.

[Anonymous No.12132965]

>>12132934
Most who die young will die of starvation and malnourishment.

[Humans are savage. No.12132975]

Who cares about the past I'm a lot more interest in the future. How will humans look in 10,000 years? Will natural selection leave only the best genetically inclined individuals alive? Will sexual selection result in good looking people?

[Anonymous No.12132979]

>>12124185
4 and you will never have sex

[Anonymous No.12133014]

>>12132975
See >>12125452

[Anonymous No.12133121]

>>12125419
no you dumbass, sex roles made men bigger.

mammals select for bigger men because bigger males can control other animals better. Hence big humans, and also big lions, and big buffalo.

birds can't be controlled easily because they fly. So males cannot control female sexuality as easily. So females select for good looking colorful males.

Note that in arctic birds, sex dimorphism is virtually zero. Because males are more necessary.

[Anonymous No.12133135]

>>12125412
The R haplogroup (aka the Aryan seed) started somewhere in Southeast Asia. Melanesians/Papuans are just relics of this ancient long lost population

You can see blondism rufism also among Indian untouchable tribals, Hmong, and Aeta people. The common thread here is Indo-Oceanian Southern Eurasian ancestry.

The people spread north and dominated the Siberian populations to form the ANE (Ancient North Eurasian). ANEs show a ton of Indian ancestry that just shouldn't logically be there. They also had limited blondism.

ANEs then spread west and cucked all of Europe, and some of North India/Iran.

Original European foragers show no evidence of blonde hair, only blue eyes. Blondism came from the east, and before that it came from the southeast. There was a selection pressure in Southeast Asia that favored light hair for some reason--one of these mutations was the tribe that spread northward.

As of now, modern Southeast Asians have been completely chink'd so it's almost all gone. A little bit left in the Hmong and Aeta.

[Anonymous No.12133329]

>>12132570
Wow theres an entire bubble for Kissless handholdless virgins, who wouldna known they have such high IQs

[Anonymous No.12133660]

>>12132934
>Most of the diet is animal based, which can only be procured by males.

Women can tend to chickens, fishing nets, and cows...

[Anonymous No.12133667]

>>12132570
>The most progressive form of human

What do you mean by this?

My hope would be long-term we can maintain human diversity. Tibetans with their evolutionary traits to living in the mountains, or that tribe that has swimming alleles... The fact such human variation exists WITHOUT gene editing is important to our species, I believe.

[Anonymous No.12133670]

>>12133660
it is before any domestication of animals

it is before the neolithic era.

[Anonymous No.12133673]

>>12133670
in the paleolithic and mesolithic, fishing was huge and gendered segregation of labor was mostly nonexistent

[Anonymous No.12133686]

>>12133673
>m-m-mostly, heh

[Anonymous No.12133695]

>>12132841
>source?
Stalking Girl
[yokkora]
1: https://exhentai.org/g/968434/49889d7534/
2: https://exhentai.org/g/986110/b97fc50bd2/
3: https://exhentai.org/g/986268/d195a1b7db/

[Anonymous No.12133696]

>>12133686
It’s true, gendered labor customs emerged with food storage technologies and the resultant reproductive hierarchies

[Anonymous No.12133837]

>>12133660
chickens were domesticated in Southeast Asia.
Cows were domesticated in India and the Mideast.

with fish you have a point yeah. But I still maintain that the red meat hunters would have been more mobile and probably the "steppe" pastoralist equivalent of paleolithic society.

[Anonymous No.12133847]

>>12133667
>>The most progressive form of human
The least ape-like, highest IQ, least adrenergic/amygdalic, etc.

>>12133696
That's bullshit, maybe they were exacerbated by agriculture but not formed by it.
Go back 30,000 years, the women were procuring plant foods, maybe fish, and the big game hunters were mostly men.

[Anonymous No.12133883]

>>12133847
Nope, try getting your facts from a source more recent than 1950. Gendered hunter-gatherer labor roles are a myth.

[Anonymous No.12133954]

>>12133883
ok I'm sure bertha was the one out there hunting mammoths

[Anonymous No.12133968]

>>12133954
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/new-women-of-the-ice-age

[Anonymous No.12133973]

>>12124195
If you're not interested in science, why post in the thread?

[Anonymous No.12135096]

>>12124954
The statistic is wrong, it refers to the Y Chromosome bottleneck that occurred during the neolithic expansion.

>The temporal sequence of the maleNedeclinepatterns among continental regions (Supplemental Fig. S4B) isconsistent with the archaeological evidence for the earlier spreadA recent bottleneck of Y chromosome diversity of farming in the Near East, East Asia, and South Asia than inEurope (Fuller 2003; Bellwood 2005). A change in social structuresthat increased male variance in offspring number may explain theresults, especially if male reproductive success was at least partially culturally inherited (Heyer et al. 2005)

Neolithic tribal groups expanded, fucked local bitches while sowing wheat.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25770088/

[Anonymous No.12135467]

>>12133121
>sex roles made men bigger.
No, bigger males made sex roles. There are many mammal species with larger females it is not universal for male mammals to be larger than females.

[Anonymous No.12136015]

>>12132646
I thought he was talking about births lol. Even so, there is no way that around sixteen men per woman died in conflict

[Anonymous No.12136191]

More women died during childbirth than men that died during wars.

[Anonymous No.12136205]

>>12133968
>https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/new-women-of-the-ice-age
from your own source

>There are a lot of plants with edible leaves and stems, and things that were used as drugs and dyes. So the plants were there. The chief plant collectors in historical societies were undoubtedly women. It was typically women’s work, says Owen.

[Anonymous No.12136212]

>>12135096
wrong, the neolithic has nothing to do with the evolution of blue eyes. Blue eyes were present in Euro foragers since at least 12,000 years ago at minimum, probably much longer.

Afterwards they got turk'd by the darker Aryans and Anatolians, but the claimed sexual selection on women happened far, far before the neolithic.

[Anonymous No.12136226]

>>12135467
You're denying reality

>There are many mammal species with larger females
Yes, and those species are resource-poor. They are so starved for resources that the male has degenerated to a smaller size by necessity.

In a species that has large availability of resources, like lions or humans or bison, the males evolve to be larger because larger males can more effectively control female sexuality, as well as other males. Since survival is easier, it is no longer important that males be small.

[Anonymous No.12136386]

>>12124185
>He claims that blonde hair blue eyes are so much more common among women than in man
What?

[Anonymous No.12136414]

>>12136386I
Well, a lot more women than men bleach their hair. (Source, what goes at my local hair salon when I go for a haircut.)
Eye color manipulation (as in colored contacts) is less common.

[Anonymous No.12136553]

>>12124195
>why are heterosexuals obsessed with the opposite sex even when they’re single?
You might as well ask closeted gay men why they’re obsessed with dudes even though their religion tells them not to be

[Anonymous No.12136617]

>>12125471
>women themselves aren't going to be cruel or mean
hahahah ... wait let me catch my breath ... HAHAHAHHHHAHAH

[Anonymous No.12137043]

>>12125471
we aren't bonobos we're humans lmao
there's a reason why we became different species and it's almost entirely due to female behaviour

[Anonymous No.12137050]

>>12125580
>>12125545
the only people calling others incel are those that unironically aren't having sex lmao

[Anonymous No.12137057]

>>12124996
the incel and overpopulation problem could have been solved by only allowing female immigrants but people are retarded

[Anonymous No.12137059]

>>12133135
surely it's more likely that blonde hair evolved separately lmao

[Anonymous No.12137088]

>>12124185
>implying men were monogamous back then

[Anonymous No.12137462]

>>12137057
Immigration was never about allowing disadvantage people into Western nations to get a better life; it was about driving the cost of labor down as far as humanly possible (the same reason for Women being forced into the work place).

Immigrants and open boarders exist purely to increase the profits and wealthy of the ultra-wealthy capitalist class and the human fallout from it isn't even a real consideration.

[Anonymous No.12137644]

>>12136226
Whales, shrews, rabbits, etc. do not live in resource poor environments.

[Anonymous No.12137891]

>>12136414
no. Yes, women bleach themselves more to look desirable. But women are naturally lighter than men in every human racial group.

In europeans this manifests via more blonde/blue eyes, in other people it manifests via paler skin.

[Anonymous No.12137900]

>>12137059
I mean, it's a hell of a coincidence that blonde hair just happens to be present only in Oceanians and post-Aryan Europeans, but not pre-Aryan Europeans, and that the Aryans and Oceanians also just happen to be connected by K2b, which is basically absent anywhere else in Eurasia.

The mutations are distinct from each other, but that doesn't preclude a common selection pressure taking place in Sundaland 50kya or so.

[Anonymous No.12137905]

>>12137644
>shrews, rabbits
You just named 2 animals adapted to resource scarcity.

I'll give you blue whales.

[Anonymous No.12138294]

>>12124185
Before, blondes got larger tits.

[Anonymous No.12138826]

>>12137043
>it's almost entirely due to female behavior
No, it's entirely due to a completely different environment.
Female sexual selection, outside of birds of paradise, is not nearly as relevant as some of you are making it out to be.

[Anonymous No.12139051]

>>12137057
>the incel and overpopulation problem could have been solved by only allowing female immigrants but people are retarded
people aren't retarded, it's passed because of female support as it tips the demand:supply ratio even more to their benefit.
What you described is only possible in a country that didn't give voting rights to women.

[Anonymous No.12139064]

>>12124221
And who is he going to favor with his limited resources to care for them? Who is more likely to produce healthier, smarter, more well behaved offspring? Who has the more stable family and the more command over their time preference in an environment that favors those factors?

[Anonymous No.12139073]

>>12137057
Or just stop tanking the labor market with women in the workforce. That's a tax on procreation resources (time and energy) in order to prop up a small clique of international people