The Direct Descendants Of The Original Humans Dont Appear To Go Bald.

[mghrs]

Nobody believes it to be a perfect correlation, but it's generally reliable.

as I said the idea that beauty is an indicator of health is just false and philosophy (not science) try to explain where the concept of beauty came from.beauty as a concept, is very recent compared to human history I would assume. an it comes from our mind. not evolution. we assign beauty and ugly not only to human beings but to every other creature and object we encounter. we design and create objects that we think are beautiful. what was beautiful years ago, isn't now. this applies to humans, phones, cars, buildings and everything. early humans weren't groomed and you can barely see a face. back then it was all about desire to mate. desire is what evolution gave us so we can reproduce. it wasn't physical attraction. both women and men desire sex. we want sex for the pleasure of it. this desire will force us to reproduce. without desire of sex we men wouldn't get near a vagina and think of it as a beautiful elegant female part. specially a bushy early human vagina. without desire, no man would trust to put his penis where he can't see. no woman would want a foreign, size shifting object sticking out from a bush inside of her body injecting her with a weird liquid that smells funny. here I describe sex without sexy words and it sounds scary not beautiful. not to mention that these parts are near our smelly sewage system. I would assume early humans had some peaces of sh*t hanging around that bush somewhere. did they smell good? did they shower at all in that cave hiding from the tiger near the river?
if a woman is attracted to a man for what he provides, it is her thinking not evolution. if she wants a beautiful man, it's her thinking not evolution. women do look up. men used to look up in old times and marry those with a proper family heritage. one got stuck with habit.
human culture not evolution have put lots of restriction on human sexual encounters. human culture came up with beauty as a concept as they came up with other concepts. evolution gave us desire to reproduce. we forgot that we have minds and consciousness that influences our thinking and decisions in life and we attribute everything to evolution saying we are programmed to think a certain way. the code seems to change from culture to culture. didn't we come up from a common ancestor? we write our own code based on our experience in life and how that experience make us feel.

god, I just realized that I wrote an essay in reply to a one line. I think I should write a book on the subject.

@Pelopeleon who disliked my previous post, you re free to do so, but my post wasn't offensive in any way and was free of any personal insults. it is just an opinion on the matter that I can say and you re free to disagree, reply and contribute to the matter.

 

[Min0]

Your theories are based a lot on emotion and are biased--this has to come from your life experience...so to say its irrelevant is ridiculous.

it is irrelevant, and my position is based on the understanding of natural selection, not life experience.

You are not showing actual science to support these theories they are coming from your perspective and observations...

that's wrong. you're just not understanding what i mean because you don't know natural selection well.

we all have experiences (although some of you perhaps no experience at all) with opposite sex or observations of other couples we know.

experiences are statistically irrelevant, unless you have been with more than a million partner or something.

Unless you are an A-sexual being--which I doubt you are since you sound pretty angry about the whole thing--then you are naturally bias in your perspective.

why is that relevant ?
so if a straight woman agrees with my position then it's true ?
here you go then :

Edit
I just saw you posted from MGTOW
LOL

do you have certain points in the video that i posted that you disagree with ? let's discuss that ...

 

[hairblues]

it is irrelevant, and my position is based on the understanding of natural selection, not life experience.


that's wrong. you're just not understanding what i mean because you don't know natural selection well.


experiences are statistically irrelevant, unless you have been with more than a million partner or something.


why is that relevant ?
so if a straight woman holds my position therefore it's true ?
then here you go

do you have certain points in the video that i posted that you disagree with ? let's discuss that ...

It is not irrelevant if you are a man or woman we are going to have our sexual experience (maybe some of you its lack of) and our emotional experience with men and women that will carry over into the subject matter.
Our life experience colors how we see it--the people we talk in our daily life parents, siblings friends experiences--who have their own opinions and stories will also color our opinions.

You are pretending like you are a scientist and you did these blind studies...Are you an anthropologist? are you a scientist who spent years conducting studies from an un biased perspective? No you are not.

You are 24 year old angry male who is looking to understand women and your place in their world...and this is the conclusions you have come to and your are supporting it with youtube clippings that suit your purposes and your 'theories'.
.

 

[Min0]

It is not irrelevant if you are a man or woman we are going to have our sexual experience (maybe some of you its lack of) and our emotional experience with men and women that will carry over into the subject matter.
Our life experience colors how we see it--the people we talk in our daily life parents, siblings friends experiences--who have their own opinions and stories will also color our opinions.
.

the best way to understand something is not by personal experience, it's by understanding its structure, and putting a theory and then using large collected data to test your theory, and if your theory successfully predicts the phenomenon in question that's when you can say you understand it.

You are pretending like you are a scientist and you did these blind studies...Are you an anthropologist? are you a scientist who spent years conducting studies from an un biased perspective? No you are not.

you don't have to be a scientist to read the data. like you don't have to be a doctor to read the medical literature.

You are 24 year old angry male who is looking to understand women and your place in their world...and this is the conclusions you have come to and your are supporting it with youtube clippings that suit your purposes and your 'theories'.

empty words !

 

[hairblues]

the best way to understand something is not by personal experience, it's by understanding its structure, and putting a theory and then using large collected data to test your theory, and if your theory successfully predicts the phenomenon in question that's when you can say you understand it.


you don't have to be a scientist to read the data. like you don't have to be a doctor to read the medical literature.


empty words !

Not really you use a lot of words that 'show' your anger and emotional involvement on the subject.
Go back and re read your posts you sound pissed off by the words you choose to describe the men and women you disapprove of.

someone with objective is removed from the subject--so they feel remote about the choices the subjects make.
Nothing is remote about your descriptions of these people.

You are only reading data (if you are even doing this I don't think clippings from youtube is data but whatever) that supports your theories...this is NOT objective.

Clearly you had this theory and sought out 'evidence' (again using the word lightly) which supports it.
You are not doing what all good researchers do--look for counter evidence to question yourself.
Because you don't want to do that...because you are emotionally married or invested in this theory being correct

SO i go back to saying your personal experience, the rejection you have faced in your life is relevant to your theories.

 

[mghrs]

beautiful women mostly have higher estrogen levels. wide hips for example are good to conceive a baby with a large brain.


ugly and beautiful are subjective terms. species that seeks high test males are called tournament species like baboons for example,
the aggressive is chosen because he gets all the food. and there is no "love" in this kind of reproduction system because
few men f*** all the women without getting attached to them, and women f*** with the winner and leave the loser.

the other reproduction system is pair bonding, those are the species where you can't make a difference between who's the male and who's the female (low sexual dimorphism), those really love eachother, because there is some kind of bird that kills himself if his parner dies.
this is the love that humans write about.

humans are in the middle of the two systems, they try to impose pair bonding with religion and civilisation, but deep down
women really want to only f*** with the top 10% of men because we have always been aggressive as a species.

men are like the male of the pair bonding species, and women are like the female of the tournament species.





the lizard brain is the one in controle of your basic urges. and while you use your lizard brain to chose a girl, you need a girl
that choses you using her lizard brain, not her cerebral cortex and a calculator.
this is how it's supposed to be.

men want to pair with one female ? seriously ? remove all legal and social consequences and give a man who wouldn't do any girl offering herself to him.
same with women. they used to hide it and deny it because of "wh*** shaming". now it is coming out slowly and men are in a shock.
both sexes mostly are incapable of love if the relationship is constructed in modern ways. you want a long lasting love get on with your best friend you put in the friend zone. or if the person is really a lovable person, their significant other would be genuinely into the relationship no matter what shallow reason got them into the relationship, but if all you can give is looks, money, or aggressiveness ,a female or a male wouldn't be that invested into the relationship. and you do realize that women come in all shapes too. heck there are men who are more beautiful than women. would I lie with him because he is "beautiful"? no, i am straight.
stop comparing human to a bird for logic sake. we are different. yes we might be 60% banana or 98% ape but considering the DNA, that is very huge difference we seem to overlook. " If uncoiled, the DNA in all the cells in your body would stretch 10 billion miles—from here to Pluto and back." see: http://discovermagazine.com/2011/apr/20-things-you-didnt-know-about-dna

 

[Min0]

Not really you use a lot of words that 'show' your anger and emotional involvement on the subject.
Go back and re read your posts you sound pissed off by the words you choose to describe the men and women you disapprove of.
someone with objective is removed from the subject--so they feel remote about the choices the subjects make.
Nothing is remote about your descriptions of these people.
You are only reading data (if you are even doing this I don't think clippings from youtube is data but whatever) that supports your theories...this is NOT objective.
Clearly you had this theory and sought out 'evidence' (again using the word lightly) which supports it.
You are not doing what all good researchers do--look for counter evidence to question yourself.
Because you don't want to do that...because you are emotionally married or invested in this theory being correct
SO i go back to saying your personal experience, the rejection you have faced in your life is relevant to your theories.

by definition of the human reproduction system my theory is true, unless you can prove to me that women turn into superwomen when pregnant and food magically appear to her.

 

[hairblues]

by definition of the human reproduction system my theory is true, unless you can prove to me that women turn into superwomen when pregnant and food magically appear to her.

You are side stepping what I said and now randomly bringing up our reproductive system to prove the theory women are gold digging b****s and men who go with women who make less than them are idiots only being used for money???
Dude way to stretch a theory to cover your opinions.

 

[Min0]

men want to pair with one female ? seriously ? remove all legal and social consequences and give a man who wouldn't do any girl offering herself to him.
same with women. they used to hide it and deny it because of "wh*** shaming". now it is coming out slowly and men are in a shock.
both sexes mostly are incapable of love if the relationship is constructed in modern ways. you want a long lasting love get on with your best friend you put in the friend zone. or if the person is really a lovable person, their significant other would be genuinely into the relationship no matter what shallow reason got them into the relationship, but if all you can give is looks, money, or aggressiveness ,a female or a male wouldn't be that invested into the relationship. and you do realize that women come in all shapes too. heck there are men who are more beautiful than women. would I lie with him because he is "beautiful"? no, i am straight.
stop comparing human to a bird for logic sake. we are different. yes we might be 60% banana or 98% ape but considering the DNA, that is very huge difference we seem to overlook. " If uncoiled, the DNA in all the cells in your body would stretch 10 billion miles—from here to Pluto and back." see: http://discovermagazine.com/2011/apr/20-things-you-didnt-know-about-dna

no, men want to f*** everyting that moves, but the majority of men get attached to a special female at least untill the kids grow.
men are capable of loving (getting attached) a special female.
females are not capable of loving a man like a men loves her. see the she'll never love you video.

 

[hairblues]

no, men want to f*** everyting that moves, but the majority of men get attached to a special female at least untill the kids grow.
men are capable of loving (getting attached) a special female.
females are not capable of loving a man like a men loves her. see the she'll never love you video.

LOL.

 

[Min0]

You are side stepping what I said and now randomly bringing up our reproductive system to prove the theory women are gold digging b****s and men who go with women who make less than them are idiots only being used for money???
Dude way to stretch a theory to cover your opinions.

you're either smart enough to understand what i'm saying or not.

 

[hairblues]

you're either smart enough to understand what i'm saying or not.

Thats a great argument LOL

 

[Roberto_72]

I know this has been brought up before, but... if we are not descendants of the original humans, who are we descendants of?

 

[sunchyme1]

I know this has been brought up before, but... if we are not descendants of the original humans, who are we descendants of?

bald wankers

 

[hairblues]

View attachment 53499

bald wankers

Are they male or female?

 

[sunchyme1]

Are they male or female?

who gives a sh*t man

theyre bald as f*** and so am i!

bastards

 

[Feelsbadman.jpg]

because you are emotionally married or invested in this theory being correct

No. You, hairblues, are emotionally invested in proving what he's saying is incorrect.

He's presented everything logically and objectively. He never mentioned anything about hating women nor did he get emotional. He simply explained why female hypergamy exits from an evolutionary standpoint. It is objectively beneficial for the species (7 billion people.....) as a whole at the expense of the male (routinely sacrificed).

If you want to be really honest with yourself hairblues, the reason you are probably so offended by this is because, at some subconscious level, you feel your reproduction strategy is being threatened. It is better for women if men are completely ignorant to this harsh and brutal reality. You will probably want to lash out with an emotional response to this but you should really do what Min0 said and watch the MGTOW video instead. You are being manipulated by the lizard and mammalian parts of your brain. Wake up.

 

[Feelsbadman.jpg]

Thats a great argument LOL

He already presented his argument but you are too subjectively biased to evaluate it logically. At this point, it's not worth his time.....

 

[hairblues]

No. You, hairblues, are emotionally invested in proving what he's saying is incorrect.

He's presented everything logically and objectively. He never mentioned anything about hating women nor did he get emotional..

LOL I said nothing emotional or derogatory towards men like he did--go to his earlier postings and look at the words he uses.
Where am I saying anything against men? no where.
So no bias on my part.

 

[Feelsbadman.jpg]

LOL I said nothing emotional or derogatory towards men like he did--go to his earlier postings and look at the words he uses.
Where am I saying anything against men? no where.
So no bias on my part.

You've missed the point entirely again. You are set in a dualistic line of thinking that this is a about "men vs women". It's not. Min0's point was that hypergamy is a product of evolution which is inherently objective and non biased.