Me and BlackPillPres recently got into a debate about human sexual dimorphism. I made the argument that human males do look better than females on average because of the phenomena of female selection in pre-civilization times. I made the argument that hypergamy existed prior to the first agricultural revolution approximately 10 thousand years ago. BlackPillPres made the argument that males were the exclusive selectors of mates for all of humanities history except of course until fairly recent times. To keep this post concise I will summarize by saying our debate came to a point where I agreed to concede if BlackPillPres proved that even before the first civilization in Anatolia males were the mate selectors. As it so happened to be, BlackPillPres proved with deductive reasoning, historical fact, and evolutionary biology that he was right on the matter; particularly by pointing out that one of the key distinguishing features of female selectivity in species of the mammal kingdom is vivid colors to appear on the males, a feature of which human males do not possess.
I hope the users who claim I am narcissistic or too egotistical can read and reevaluate their opinion on me after this. I will not allow my pride to get in the way of truth and admit defeat where it is laid upon me. BlackPillPres and I had an intellectual duel, I was outwitted, out-matched, out-spoken, and most importantly OUT-CLASSED. This is no concession of my identity to his nor a concession of total defeat in character. I merely admit and concede that in this particular thread, that particular debate, I have seen victory possess my opponent a forth my very eyes.
For anyone who wishes to read the thread and see for their own eyes. I have it linked.
