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

[Afro_Vacancy]

civilisation is a tiny part of the human history. the rules has not changed that much.

by definition the effective majority should behave like i described, ofcourse there is a minority of men that exists to impregnate women who are married to beta providers LOL.

the attachment i'm talking about is not necessarily marriage, it's a feeling that people call love, men have to love women.
men write poems about women, they fetichize and worship her body parts, and when they break up, some men never recover.

there is no love in species with high sexual dimorphism (the body of the male is bigger than the female and vice versa)
for example the dominant alpha baboon sometimes even kill the babies of the last dominant alpha male, and the women will still join his harem.
because that's where the protection and the food.

love as defined by humans only exist in species with sexual monomorphism (females and males look alike)
like a lot of birds. (that's why they say you two lovebirds instead of LoveBaboons).

women have always behaved like tournament species females, they seek always the man with the power, sometimes it's muscle
where there is no law, and sometimes it's money in civilisation. human females are by definition incapable of love.

Aren't humans kind of monomorphic relative to most species? The size difference between human males and females is ~10% in height and ~20% in weight, I think that's smaller than for most animals.

 

[Min0]

Aren't humans kind of monomorphic relative to most species? The size difference between human males and females is ~10% in height and ~20% in weight, I think that's smaller than for most animals.

a man is much stronger than a woman who has the same size.
in animals size mostly implies physical superiority.

men are very agressif. where males are agressive and physically dominant, they compete with eachother for women, the winner takes all.
in monomorphic species, males and females who look alike form a couple and pair bond sometimes for life.

 

[H]

if you like to define it that way then let me rephrase that for you,
men should be with women that want to benefit from their bodies as well, instead of their money !

my golden rule is to never continue with a girl who demanads marriage, avoid her like the plague.
so unless she asks me to marry her she'll never hear me explain to her why she's incapable of love.

I can understand not getting married totally man i do get some of your points dont get me wrong would you want it to be a monogamous relationship though without marriage? Could you stick to one woman for the rest of your life if she was just a pretty face even if she's as dull and uninteresting as a wet carrot? I feel like who the person is on the inside has a little say in the women I think about seeing on the regular I've been with very attractive women who were nothing like me great bodies love the sex but I didn't connect with them because of their personality and something felt missing I'm sure women have had similar experiences. You just can't over generalize men and women. Isn't it kind of cruel to withhold the information that she's doomed to fail no matter what she does or what you do together if you have no faith in her at all from the get go and can't ever whose actually incapable of love I wonder?

 

[Min0]

I can understand not getting married totally man i do get some of your points dont get me wrong would you want it to be a monogamous relationship though without marriage? Could you stick to one woman for the rest of your life if she was just a pretty face even if she's as dull and uninteresting as a wet carrot? I feel like who the person is on the inside has a little say in the women I think about seeing on the regular I've been with very attractive women who were nothing like me great bodies love the sex but I didn't connect with them because of their personality and something felt missing I'm sure women have had similar experiences. You just can't over generalize men and women. Isn't it kind of cruel to withhold the information that she's doomed to fail no matter what she does or what you do together if you have no faith in her at all from the get go and can't ever whose actually incapable of love I wonder?

to be honest i'm done with women now after understanding how their hamster runs.
traps are the future .

 

[H]

to be honest i'm done with women now

sounds good.

 

[NewUser]

women are designed by nature to only f*** with the top 5% males if they can.
civilisation and traditionalism was forcing women to f*** with the average joe because he has wheat or rice.
with the welfare state women don't need to f*** with the average joe anymore. that's feminism for you.

Without the welfare state, our fertility rates would skyrocket and mass starvations would be the norm. Anthropologists have said that various cultures worldwide pursued large families as a sort of guarantee someone will look after them into old age. There was no old age security in bygone times. In the countries where having large families is still the norm, there are no public pensions and very little welfare state. For those in the poorest of poor countries, f*****g and making babies is all the power and control over their lives they will ever have.

So in a nutshell there you have it. We could become full-time p**rn stars while dog eat dog capitalism transforms society into a conveyer belt of death and misery as it was for centuries, or we can have social democracy, but we can't have both.

 

[Min0]

Without the welfare state, our fertility rates would skyrocket and mass starvations would be the norm. Anthropologists have said that various cultures worldwide pursued large families as a sort of guarantee someone will look after them into old age. There was no old age security in bygone times. In the countries where having large families is still the norm, there are no public pensions and very little welfare state. For those in the poorest of poor countries, f*****g and making babies is all the power and control over their lives they will ever have.

So in a nutshell there you have it. We could become full-time p*rn stars while dog eat dog capitalism transforms society into a conveyer belt of death and misery as it was for centuries, or we can have social democracy, but we can't have both.

i prefer not to go down this rabbit hole,i just stated some facts. feminists want the goverment to be their husband.

 

[NewUser]

As opposed to the likely alternative, corporatism, because every power vacuum tends to be filled by opportunists. Hitler and Mussolini through Franco and Pinochet did deals with corporatists, and the results were, in the end, that at some point the people become unafraid of the dictatorship's bullets.

The elite 1% would love to get rid of or even privatise the welfare state but are hesitant to say the least. The full neoliberal Monty was tried on for size in General Pinochet's Chile. Instead of the usual 30-year run in the sun, laissez-faire there lasted about 15 years. Prior to that, in the first half of the last century, Americans and Canadians rejected laissez-faire capitalism in 1930's elections after leaving that which matters to the whims of an invisible hand from 1900 to 1929. Farmers couldn't survive without government help, and bankers who seized farms weren't prepared to actually work the land themselves. One American described it in this way: Laissez-faire proved to be duller and greyer than Soviet communism. Laissez-faire has failed in every experiment since 14th century Italy. Mixed market economies will be the way for some time to come. So there is just one barrier to having things your way, minzero, and that would be democracy. They will try to convince you that an invisible hand works best, min0. Don't be sucked in by it - there is no such thing. Rabbit hole indeed. "Why is a raven like a writing desk?", asked the mad Hatter.

 

[Roberto_72]

There's an evolutionary reason for hypergamy and it's not really debatable. It exists is many other species and you do not have to be to knowledgeable on evolution to understand it.

Women have to commit 9 months to pass on their genes, men have to commit 5 minutes. Thus women are more selective in their mates, men will f*** near anything as it's zero commitment.

Women allow males to fight in the male dominance hierarchy and try pick the top from that. This is well documented and isn't some wild theory.

This is untrue for most mammals. Take cats and dogs. They will mate multiple times and let the best semen win...

 

[kiwipilu]

And some live longer thanks to genetics. It’s all about genetics!
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15606