your DNA isnt >80% european and thats all that matters. maybe you're "white" in the slums of guatemala but not in europe
100%, this is well known to happen in groups of male zoo animals that do not have females at their disposal they turn gay.
There is no double standard though. Males can force females to sleep with them at least in the primate world and foids can not do so due to their size and inherit physical weakness. There is no double standard here as we are inherently unequal.
Not a fan of the concept, I'd be perfectly fine with the thought of it breaking down. Sure my quality of life would drop and the age I would die at too, however that is fine. Freedom is more important to me.
I think that you are just speculating my guy. Sure you do not have a lot of information about me and that is fine, but calling someone hypocritical is very ballsy of you. And no I am not contradicting myself either, I could have said an untruth, which is very possible. However that does not empower you to wildly make assumptions about me and my positions.
"Twin and family studies have shown that same-sex sexual behavior is partly genetically influenced, but previous searches for specific genes involved have been underpowered. "
Your little cluster of studies does not and has not demonstrated that homosexuality is purely genetic. It merely states that there is a genetic component to it, so you are wrong it is not demonstrably false. I will have to give you credit though that I was imprecise in my expression, but it was a two sentence message, so you'll have to take it with a grain of salt. I do detect a tendency in you to extrapolate, given that all I said was that repression of natural sexual instincts can lead to homosexuality and not that this ONLY leads to homosexuality.
Of course my hypothesis is not backed up by any literature because of the mire of worthless gay studies that one walks into whenever including the world "homosexual" in the google scholar search engine. And I suspect that such studies also do not exist. So that is your only relevant claim, to say that there is no literature backing me up.
I suspect that you do not care about the objective truth and that you only are here to get your rocks off by being a contrarian. While that is fair game irl that might get you in trouble. Take care brocel, not too long ago I used to be like you, that is why I am saying all of this.
R
yeah
First of all, sorry for the long post. This is more of me trying to write as much as I can against similar arguments against my viewpoints in the the future as I can easily refer back to what I wrote here since my opinions are usually kept hidden in my head all the time and I rarely get a chance to express them in written form, and so this is quite a few hours worth of thinking and typing as a result. You can read it if you have the attention span to read for so long of course, and responding is optional, but thank you anyways for replying back to me yesterday, buddyboyo.
The idea that the women who were typically married off at young ages were married off in China or Europe because their families were poor is not entirely true, as upper classes in many European cultures such as in Ancient Rome typically got married younger on average, as was shown in the LOM/AAD graph in my previous post. The upper strata of Medieval European society, in particularly nobility were all married younger on average than the average peasant.
In Europe, The marriage of 18 year old Phillip IV, King of France to 11 year old Joan I of Navarre serves as an example, more relevant examples include 8/9 year old Cecile, Countess of Tripoli marrying 30/31 year old Tancred, Crusader Prince of Galilee, and most infamously, King Richard II of England, marrying 6 year old Isabella of Valois, 22 years his junior, done at a time where many kings in Europe were absolutist kings who called upon the divine right of kings meaning at the time, many of their actions could not be reprehensible at the time.
Whilst marriages were fairly ocassional at what can be considered 'particularly young ages' in Europe, betrothals were still very common and a future husband could spend time with his future wife as if they were already married, with the barring of consummation until whenever they chose to marry. An example of this can be the betrothals of Mary, Queen of Scots, and Francis II, future king of France. In today's society, such acts would be treated as mere 'doctor's play' between two children, but back then, it was crucial to the prospects of the betrothal and was taken seriously.
In Ancient China, the practise of Tongyangxi meant, that for a poor family, it provided an opportunity for a girl to escape poverty and potentially rceive some form of dowry, whilst for a wealthy family, it provided free labour as the girl would esentially start work as a servant to her husband or future husband in childhood;
It was also common for a wife to be far older than her husband due to the custom of child marriage. In a so-called child marriage, a well-to-do family usually adopted a girl from a poor family as their prospective daughter-in-law when their son was still a toddler and held the wedding for them when their son came of age. At that time, this brought benefits for both sides. The husband’s family received a cheap labor and saved on betrothal gifts as well. And the wife’s family was spared the trouble of bringing their daughter up and saved the cost of her dowry as well. This practice came into being in the Three Kingdoms Period (220-280) and developed into a custom in the Song and Yuan dynasties (the 10th-14th century).
Whilst I could not find any records of it in any Ancient Chinese societies, in pre-contemporary Qing China, the nobility is said to have adopted a very similar practise, where they married off same aged emperors to concubines of the same age such as with 11 year old Empress Xiochengren and 12 year old Empress Xioazhoaren being offered to Kangxi in 1665.
Qing emperors often had pre-menarchal girls as concubines. Emperor Qianlong, and his predecessor Yongzheng were known to have had young concubines who were often as young as 8 or 9 years of age.
Biological stages such as menarche have never been stable. According to skeletal remains of Paleolithic women, scientists have been able to determine the time of menarche occuring for them anywhere from 7-13 years of age, but increased. In 1840, the average age of menarche was 16.5 years, as compared to 12.4 years today. This means that women in pre-industrial agricultural societies would have been 4.1 years younger in sexual development. A 13 year old Roman female who would be married off back then for example, would be the equivalent to a 9 year old if she was married off today, so the amount of rotations around the Earth based on a manmade timekeeping system that isn't even properly a thousand years old isn't really accurate, and you would have less of an idea on it all if you had no concept of time which was most of human prehistory.
The high protein, nutrient rich diet of hunter gatherer societies at the time, and the lower disease burden that encumbered agricultural societies meant that menarche took place much earlier on average, like today, though you could say that it is an artificial imitation of such, since hunter gatherers relied on natural non-processed diets and didn't have endocrine disruptors that are typically found in processed foods that mimic hormones and potentially accelerate menarche, imitating early hunter gatherers.
Having an exclusive and primary attraction to whatever has been mentioned is abnormal and on par with homosexuality, but such a maladaptive trait likely doesn't exist unlike homosexuality, because it has never been referred to until 1906, where the word 'pedophilia' was coined, and even then, it referred to narrowed down version of homosexuality (exclusive attraction to pre-spermarchal males), and since then, the word has been bastardized hundreds of thousands of times and become a buzzword. It is clear that such paraphilias, if they existed, would have the terms coined for them much earlier in history if they were 'sexually deviant', and would not change meanings every two seconds.Nigga it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that kindergartners aren't naturally sexually attractive to neurotypical humans
In 18th century Russia, it was possible to buy a pre-menarchal girl and marry her off her father. In Ancient Rome and Greece, prostitution of the sort was very common and dishonourable women of any age were forced into it, as well as in more contemporary societies such as in the US, and hunter gatherers in Europe were said to have married or engaged their women at the average of 14, and some of these women could have been in a pre-menarchal stage, Viking women were often potentially married before they hit menarche since the age ranges from 12-15 to men much older than them, so you saying that it was commonplace or allowed in 'extreme scenarios' or exclusively in other continents doesn't make sense.
There has only been a stigma arising from a collective series of news articles, The Maiden Tribute of Babylon published in July 1885 by W.T Stead, so this current status quo or what has came from it including the hysteria has only been the case for about 150 years.
Without the stigma against it, most men would admit and report a plethora of attraction to whatever physically attractive female there is under an arbitrary age. But also for most men, those females certainly wouldn't be the type they are most strongly attracted to, so most men would only be opportunistic in seeking sex with those females. It's not like normies go to high school and think, "Gee, these girls are too old, I wish I were back in middle school", so yeah, men are most attracted to women of a primary statistic, but it's not stable, just like with our sexual attraction to grown women. We as men also prefer a bit of imperfectness from our ideal in females when the ideal is not met or available, and since women are all more imperfect and unequal then men, weaker in physical strength and intelligence and in decision making capabilities, we still are sexually attracted to them regardless, so I don't see why the same logic can't apply when it comes to adaptive or opportunistic sexual or physical attraction to lesser sexually attractive females.
If what you think was not common in human evolutionary history, then females would have not evolved to reach their periods earlier than the age of which males do their equivalent sperm production. Most men don't have a strong sexual attraction to pre-menarchal women, but it is said to still be 1/4 as strong as it is to when they are done growing and there is a strong disparity between homosexual attraction, so it isn't completely absent or linked at all with homosexuality either, and there is no point demonising more than half of men who are able to feel something in between their legs for that demographic, and it doesn't mean that it is always used as a disadvantage, just like sexual attraction for fertile women which has been used for both good and bad.
A slight attraction is still an attraction. If you're starving and someone gives you slightly tasty food, it's still going to taste nice, especially if there is no taboo against eating it.
Historically, men who felt motivated to adopt orphaned females due to feeling some attraction for them, while pursuing fertile women as their main sexual interest, likely had increased reproductive success, as they would have been able to reproduce with the girl they adopted once she became fertile. Keep in mind that for almost all of civilized history, mortality was very high, and orphans were extremely common.
Marriage doesn't have an age requirement in Islam, and the concept of a fixed engagement is often shunned because it might lead to the comittment being broken or fornication occurring, since engagement in Islam of course has less of a power, iand the couple are still considered strangers to each other in the eyes of Islamic law until the nikah or the marriage contract is finalized, so it doesn't allow you to be affectionate with your wife-to-be, so going straight to marriage is more encouraged to maintain your purity.
It is more than likely that Muhammad married Aisha because of many different factors, and not maybe because he purpotedly felt sexual attraction to her at the time, since expressing your lust extramaritally is forbidden in islam. It is possible that he could have had co-dependent feelings towards Aisha, and men who experience co-dependency are more likely to seek long term relationships. The fact that he remained committed to her after she became fertile and consummated his marriage with her and since she was with him until his death, he was still most likely sexually attracted to her like any normal man, otherwise he would have not married her anyways or divorced her when she reached menarche, such is the case of.
If you think early arranged marriages like between Eunice Winstead and Charlie Johns (which led to a happy marriage that resulted in children) is a 'sexual deviancy' just because they are said to have married an arbitrary amount of rotations around the sun earlier than what you think was suitable, then there might be something flawed with your thinking.
A woman would never show the same selflessness in choosing and esentially nurturing a male partner from an early age, and this is why men, and not women, came up with the social construct of romance. A woman's sexual attraction really only revolves around looks, status, height or appendage size, but the same is not true for men.
Beauty is only one of four reasons for marrying a woman in Islam for this reason.
In my own eyes, and this is purely hypothetical by the way, the most logical sort of monogamous social institution would try and create less jealousy and intrasexual violence from other men since monogamous cultures where marriages are delayed only do so to let a woman's breasts and buttocks or whatever grow, and to let other parts of her torso grow to appeal more to their prospective husbands, but it is more costly to raise her to that point, and more high risk low reward since she can be more predisposed to socially destructive or hypocritical behaviours such as fornication, as time goes on and she still isn't married off, and the father would be less energetic to show his own authority on his daughter.
Delaying courting norms (this is suggesting this hypothetical meritocratic society has a very puritan attitude towards sociosexuality and chad is either cockblocked and faces harsh punitive punishment or is forced to have a shotgun wedding) could also incite uncessary male jealousy, because as more time is given for female sexual secondary characteristics to develop before women to be married off, in their eyes, some men would think that other men didn't deserve to get what they have which would be more likely if women were allowed to reach their own sexual maturity (There would be more fairness in distributing physically attractive females before their bodies develop since there would be more of a surprise factor and this sort of pre-selection would seem more fair because there would be an equal amount of men getting more physically unattractive females that turn out to have more physically/sexually attractive bodies as with the other way around) , and this would maybe cause them to be more violent or angered, since men are not entirely devoid of their standards, and there would be more perceived unfairness.
To elaborate further, men would be more likely less to be jealous and angered about it if all women were married off before developing their secondary sexual characteristics (if there was no stigma on it), since women before beginning their thelarche all have the same bodies and can just judged by primarily by their facial physical and sexual attractiveness, and so every man would have the chance to seize all the reproductive rights and reproductive years of a female, and there would be an equal amount of men who would have to accept what they have, since accepting limitedness is the most realistic stance.
It is well known that every woman differs in body traits and sizes, some greatly, some little, and there are plenty of females who retain similar breast size/torso/waist sizes etc after their periods and their body development stagnates or stops and they are left flat chested or flat buttock-ed, and since there is only a limited amount of women who fit the ideal to every man and this will stay the same even if we leave their bodies to grow, it is not wrong to think of having a system where instead of wasting their younger years and being an economic detriment to a father only to also end up on varying levels of attractiveness to men when they develop secondary sexual characteristics, they would be introduced to a second father figure much earlier and learn the domestic roles expected of them in a marriage. We would probably have been on Mars by now if we were this resourceful.
So, in essence we have to consider in the fact that physically unattractive women would also have to be married off and would be in the same percentage as they were before, so why not as well marry them off even earlier to equalise things? Some men would just have to be happy and would mostly be happy with what they have because it would still be the most fair way of distributing women with the least onfighting, so it would at least make men more collectively happier than today. Men nowadays end up comitting to promiscuous physically unattractive women and still end up being happy with it. If we as men realised that there would be more physically unattractive women that would need to be distributed to men who would need to force themselves to accept the fact that there is nothing wrong with them apart from how they look, then our part of the problem would be fixed, but it still would be more fixable then if women were involved.
There is nothing wrong in idealising in a precocious marriage system like this, even if it's totally unrealistic and purely idealistic and visionary, I think it this would definitely be the best solution to combatting male sexlessness in an ideal society, but it would be very hard or most likely impossible to implement because of the genuine disorder and instability of things in life, as well as lookism, and inherent selfishness, which can cause the lack of committment one can have for the collective species as a whole.
If you are for the beneficial side of male sexuality in both economic and social prospects being expressed, than a man as long as he gets the consent to by their father, should be able to consummate the marriage whenever he wants to, as long as he remains commited to his wife for his lifetime.
However, in Ancient Rome, promiscuous women, prostitutes, actresses, singers, dancers, entertainers, performers, and any other woman who associated herself with prolonged male company outside of her male relatives, fell into 'infamia' and lost their legal rights of Roman citizenship.
They couldn't provide testimony in court, for example, or accuse someone of rape, and couldn't rely on the government to protect them from violence of any kind. They either had to rely on pimps or bodyguards to protect them from being forced upon, unlike in contemporary society where they are protected by law enforcement and their accusation is taken as serious as any other woman would.
You're essentially pushing girls to become sluts if you think that virgins and sluts should be equally protected from rape. Why wouldn't they get on the Chad cock carousel if quitting their degenerate behaviour would not benefit them? In a non cucked society, raping a virgin would be punished by death; raping a harlot, even with a red hot iron rod, would not be considered a crime.
You could apply the same logic to old people over a certain age whose brain volume and functional ability return to the same as they were to an earlier age (yet they are still allowed to have sex with their partners if they still have the sex drive to do so), or any other woman that has a low functional/mental ability, like individuals with down syndrome, brain damage, or just about any individual if they were kept in a cage and had no crystalized knowledge of the 'implications of sex', it won't stop your instincts of desiring sex.
It is known that individuals under a specific arbitrary age whom are seen more 'vulnerable', are still allowed to play harmful contact sports, watch movies involving emotionally sensitive and complex topics such as death and war, and train exhaustively for gymnastics or sports events, and even be allowed to slaughter animals during hunting trips and fishing despite not understanding the implications of them.
Many animals can consent to sexual interaction through body language. But you'd have to actually care enough about animals to learn to read them. The same is true for both disabled over and under arbitrary age individuals with the intelligence and communicative ability of higher animals, yet the double standard somehow applies when they're over that arbitrary age according to you.
Childhood innocence is a modern social construct made by the Enlightenment philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau in the 18th century. When he lived in Venice, he and a friend bought a young 11 or 12 year old female with the intention of having sex with her. At the time, this was standard procedure in Venice. He eventually came to believe that the female was innocent and that it would be improper for him to ever have sex with her. He also persuaded his companion not to have sex with her.
Rousseau was mistaken to think that children are born as pure, unadulterated beings who are subsequently tainted by culture and society. Because it thinks that people are inherently nice, this is a profoundly bluepilled view of human nature. The blank slate notion has been thoroughly disproved, and we now know that all behavioural features are hereditary. Even promiscuity, or sociosexuality, has a strong genetic component. When a slut or a prostitute's daughter is first predisposed to her sexual hormones, she is extremely likely to be drawn to deviant behaviour, so it is justifiable for her to be put in her place early.
In a study where pre-menarchal females were involved, they selected the sexualised doll when asked which one better reflected their ideal self-image, after being shown a sexualised doll and a healthy non-sexualized doll. If these females would have truly been 'innocent', they would have selected the wholesome doll if they were naturally innocent. At such a young age, they wouldn't naturally desire to show off their sexuality.
I see that you are referring to the construct of consensual sex and you are referring it in a way which means that you would probably rather see women rewarding undeserving men who can be serial killers or murderers with sex, whilst on the other hand labelling man with the fantasy of raising and moulding a wife for himself from birth and growing old with her as infinitely more evil. This is very disingenous of you, since the social construct of consensual sex means that women should have the same decision making abilities as men when it comes to sex, even though most women are never able to grasp the long term implications of having sex. Women should never be able to decide who to have sex with and their fathers or relevant male authority should decide, unless these women are prostitutes.
In an ideal society, women should not have the right to choose who to mate with since they tend to make maladaptive mating choices. That choice should be made for them by civilized men of intelligence.
Women have always relied entirely on men to provide them with resources and to keep them safe, and they still rely entirely on men. Today's situation is different because of modern gynocentrist interests, which has made women rely on men collectively through the government, which openly discriminates against males to supply them with money and many other benefits, rather than on individual men as protectors and providers.
Despite the fact that males are superior to women in every occupation that isn't connected to childcare or nursing, female supremacist regulations compel businesses to meet gender quotas and recruit a lot more women. Women can choose to become single mothers because women are the main recipients of the welfare state, which eliminates the need for individual males to provide for them but makes them consumerist economic leeches that would have otherwise collapsed any pre-industrial civilization in a single second.
Women's choices in the past have also often been controlled or limited by relatives, but those parents that want to control their sexuality can no longer do so in any punitive manner, particularly in the west, since child protection laws essentially brought an end to that.
I think you are overexaggerating the involvement of 'Jewish Bolsheviks' in promoting promiscuity. Whilst the Frankfurt School was filled with many Jews by the likes of Wilhelm Reich and other Marxists idealogues who promoted the concept of a 'free sexuality', the core blame lies only in female sexuality (it is their fault for being conformative) , partly with pussywhipped native men giving them rights that makes it harder for men to get sex. Jewish intellectuals have only been partly responsible for distributing their ideas, but it was the west's choice to adapt to their ideas and bring them out in the light, and not theirs, and sometimes, like Wilhelm Reich who believed that free sexuality could get men to have more sex, they were deluded by their own ideas.
Most of the die was already cast long ago by the Enlightenment and non-Jew Enlightenment philosophers like the likes of John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Adam Smith, Charles Montesquieu and many others, who started bringing up the fact that humans everywhere have the ability to reason for themselves and form their own societies, including women.
The enlightenment is also partly responsible for causing the emergence of the first decline of authority over women in the West in the likes of The Western European Marriage pattern. As result, it became more important for men to cater to women's expectations and demands rather than to their fathers', and more women gained the freedom to act on their hypergamy, and to delay marriage until their mid to late thirties.
I do know that consanguinious relations are more common in MENA than every where else, but it does not take away the fact that many advanced cultures throughout the world had close kin arrangement and practised endogamy, sometimes even as close as sibling arrangements such as in Ancient Mesopatamia, Egypt or Persia.
The study mentions that native Swedes didn't have the same autosomal diseases caused by immigrants from MENA. Native Europid cluster populations instead would have higher genetic risks such as higher rates of cystic fibrosis or hereditary hemochromatosis that are more likely to be propagated through inbreeding.
Birth abnormalities and genetic illnesses are not always caused by 'inbreeding' however. It certainly raises the frequency of homozygosity, which raises the likelihood that two deleterious recessive alleles may combine. A deleterious recessive characteristic is created when two detrimental recessive alleles come together.
To put it simply, inbreeding necessitates a genetic predisposition in order to raise the chance of birth abnormalities. A detrimental recessive allele must be shared by both parents for there to be a higher chance of birth abnormalities or other issues.
In first cousin marriages, the bride and the groom both share about 6.25%, but the share of DNA increases if there is a repetitive pattern of cousin marriages in a family. If double cousins keep marrying each other and reproducing, then by the 4th generation double cousins would share the same amount of DNA as siblings do.
Compared to premodern times, reproductive incest is riskier nowadays. Almost all children with poor genetics died from infectious childhood diseases prior to the development of modern medicine and hygiene. Children with strong immune systems and few harmful alleles were the only ones who made it to adulthood. Purifying selection is the term used to describe this phenomenon and it is a part of natural selection. Those who survived to reach reproductive age were generally more "immune" to the negative effects of incest.
If you want children with autosomal diseases to have lower chances of reproducing, or for them to have a lowered chance of being born at all, then you'd also want to have the same attitutde by wanting reducing the chance of autosomal diseases in non-related couples, since Modern Medicine has brought about an increase in autosomal diseases in non-related couples too, and there is a 3% (only about half as low as the percentage for first cousins) chance in unrelated parents of bringing about children who can carry recessive alleles which can then be expressed if they have any offspring.
This study demonstrates that even while sibling marriage was widespread in ancient Egypt, purifying selection kept the genepool of the Egyptian population free of deleterious alleles, preventing inbreeding from having the detrimental effects that it would today. Brother-sister couples had a comparatively high proportion of offspring who were healthy enough to survive childhood.
There is no evidence that male penguins at Bremerhaven Zoo tried to mate with each other, but only formed long term pairs in the absence of female mates to mate with because of male-co-operative bonds that are common in many species such as in bottlenose dolphins.
The male pairs at Bremerhaven were also observed sitting on stones, which mimicks the behaviour of incubating an egg, and this might have shown that their pair bonding was driven by parental instincts rather than sexual attraction, unlike homosexual behaviour in humans, which involves consistent sexual attraction to members of the same sex.
Homosexual behaviour is shown even when there is an opportunity for mating in male rams who have had prior and drawn contact with female ewes, still retain a 6-8% exclusivity for preferring a male even when there is available options for mating with ewes, and this is linked to differences in their brain structures which is similar to the genetic differences in brain structures between homosexual and heterosexual human males, where certain parts of the brain in a homosexual male connected to sexuality are more similar to the parts of a heterosexual female. This brain structure is smaller in homosexual rams, similar to how it is in female sheep.
So it is indeed that an over-representated amount of asexually or homosexually oriented penguins were brought into the zoo by chance and were already predisposed to these behaviours and would have done the same if they were never brought to the zoo.
If you want to seriously apply the behaviour of this penguins to human sociosexuality, we're all automatic faggots who want to peg each other when we work and pay taxes to raise the children of single mothers, or that there was a gradual rise in faggots as civilization became a thing because it required extensive male co-operation for us to get to this point (but the biggest stigmas against homosexuality were brought about when civilization was already there), which would all make us faggots, and incels.is wouldn't exist because us sexually frustrated men would be more predisposed to becoming homosexuals. The sexually frustrated men that become homosexuals only do so because there was always faggot instincts inside of them that they were born with, but the vast majority of sexually frustrated men like us stay as they are and would never imagine taking a penis inside of them.
Since according to evolutionary biology, we are primates, it's only fair that we freely be allowed to emulate our own natural sociosexuality instead of mimicking species that are less similar to us, and in this case, there is clear double standards when you compare it to modern human sociosexuality since our primate counterparts do not restrict their sexuality unlike modern human males.
Even in this cucked society of todays, If they could be confident they wouldn't be caught or penalised, 35% of males say they would be at least somewhat likely to rape. Not because it is unethical to use Chad's sperm toilets, but solely because the likelihood of being caught is too great for sane males to refrain from rape.
Men should be permitted to play out their baser inclinations on women if society permits them to freely engage in their animal instincts, which include hypergamy, exhibitionism, promiscuity, and other provocative behaviour. Women who act like animals when they're hot should be handled the same way their species' males treat animals when they're hot. They have no right to this sort of treatment.
Humans evolved in an environment where adapting to violence was crucial for survival, and in essence, all violent acts in our ancestral environment were an expression of unrestricted freedom in an individual sense, but does this mean that we should stop repressing a lot of impulsive sexually violent acts from happening through social and legal constructs just because of your perceived idea that repressing sexuality causes more homosexuality?
Humans and their primate cousins, who have evolved to dominate and control females, are fundamentally different from birds and other animal species where males pursue females. Sexual cohesion is fairly prevalent among water-birds with webbed feet that cannot readily hide in trees, but it is uncommon among birds that can land on short branches where the male can't easily overpower them. Because of their intricate feathers, male peacocks are slower than females while running and flying.
I have lurked a lot more often than I have posted on this forum, and have stumbled many of your threads and posts and do agree with some of your viewpoints, an example being your calculations on the great replacement and indirectly proving the exaggeration of stormfrontcels here, as always when you debate someone on one disagreement, more disagreements come up and you realise that there's a lot more that differates you and the person you're arguing with.
Also, I am sorry if I came off as abrasive. I am just trying my best not to look like a brashful pseudo-intellectual and I am sorry again if that backfired since I didn't want to look tryhard by writing with such effort. I am not here to belittle any of the users here and I suffer from a lack of self esteem in my life. You are probably worth more than me to everyone you know personally, unlike me, and I may have less to live for, since I joined this forum at 15 and I am still here 5 years later, so don't take my words harsh on yourself.
Homosexuality is said to have been more prevalent in hunter gatherer societies then agricultural societies and the former had less restrictions on sexuality, so if you are for your definitions for individual 'freedom' (in this case when it comes to sexuality) then it is pointless to continuously stigmatize homosexuality since it occurs anyways even when there is a greater lack of surveilance due to the lack of technology or advanced social codes, and you know that these stigmas against homosexuals have taken or take up resources, time and manpower that can be spent instead on more materialistic pursuits which to you probably give off an illusion of 'freedom'.
The public prevalence of homosexuality may have been affected by factors such as legal and social constructs such as enforced monogamy and subsequent stigmatization of homosexuality, but this does not support the notion of the trait being affected by these factors, since it would mean and suggest that homosexuality is a forced adaptive trait to an environment, which is not true because in all of human history, homosexuality has been a maladaptive adaptation since it doesn't lead to any offspring and has been rightfully stigmatized as a result.
A better proof to support my own point is to compare this to the nature of women, where you can never get rid of the chad-only nature of women, but in the past, we have had to suppress it by means of monogamy or controlled semi-enforced polygamy, and women adapted and conformed, but taking these social pressures away have led to women becoming promiscuous and primalistic (which for women has resulted in an increasing amount of sexual partners, whilst the opposite for men), and go against these social pressures, which goes against the point of adaptations to certain stigmas affecting sexuality.
We can never take away or change inherent female or male sexuality unless we genetically alter it through advanced technological means such as gene editing. But men have restricted their sexuality and still have restricted it even now and have socially adapted to shaming their own sexuality, even though there is no longer any benefits of doing so since the female equivalent is no longer restricted and is actually actively causing economical detriment and the loss of social cohesion. But even with the shaming of male sexuality, it hasn't removed the hidden suppressed nature of men.
Anyways, likewise, homosexuals can adapt, but this does not make them lose their homosexual traits and means they suddenly stop becoming homosexuals or start becoming homosexuals out of nowhere, as you suggested. If there is a tendency to lash out like those penguins in the article and either become phenotypically prone to homosexuality or perceived homosexuality, then there was always a genotypical trait involved in making them homosexual.
The weak selection pressure hypothesis argues that same-sex attraction was the result of preselective pressures during evolution which naturally caused deletrious alleles, ones that can be linked to homosexuality, to be spawned into the gene pool.
The fact that homosexuals often have very low reproductive success even in an environment where they are allowed to freely have children of their own through artificial means compared to heterosexuals suggests that it may be a re-emerging trait that occurs within individuals, and no external factor has been linked to primarily to it, so I think that there is nothing particularly wrong with my claim, and you have probably understood it in a wrong context.
Genetic replication is not perfect, and copy errors or mutations occur, that give rise to
alleles which are usually impairing for the fitness of the individual who carries them.
These alleles experience negative selection and are removed from the gene pool. Yet,
the mutation rate is positive, meaning that there would be an influx of new mutations.
Accordingly, at any given point in time, there would be an equilibrium frequency of
fitness-impairing mutant alleles that is determined by the balance between mutation rate
and the rate that selection forces remove these alleles from the gene pool (Lynch 2010).
This so called mutation-selection balance equilibrium is different for each mutant
allele, depending on the mutation rate and the how much of a negative fitness effect this
allele has. For a given mutation rate, the more fitness-impairing the allele is, the lower
the mutation-selection balance equilibrium would be. Thus, if the mutant allele is lethal (in reproductive success),
the mutation-selection balance equilibrium would be equal to the mutation rate, since
any individual who carries it would not have any offspring to pass this allele.
The fact that homosexuals don't go on to to have children of their own in non-artificial ancestral environments means that it should have been a once-in-a-lifetime occurence long ago if it was primarily influenced by social factors, and not popped up again out of nowhere.
Understandable. Talked about your finding above, and the fact that you do not have the time to look for studies, might be a strength for you since you might have more time to do other things that you want to do in your personal life, so no harsh feelings on you from me. I just want to try and engross myself into as many research and literature as possible to then debate with conflicting viewpoints that one has less ability to debate against when he is not particularly knowledgeable, and hence I am trying to do with you so we can both come to a greater realization or at least come to an agreement.
Referring specifically to Islamic societies, In a contemporary world of overpopulation, women's educational opportunities, poverty, and significant strain on essential financial resources, Islamic culture only contributes to widespread male sexlessness. Traditional Islamic communities are not at all like modern Islamic societies.
For instance, Syria's population has grown tenfold while Egypt's population has grown sevenfold since 1900. In contrast, the UK's population is not even twice as large as it was in 1900. After Western technology was introduced and childhood mortality was eradicated during the colonial era, educated urban Muslims started to adopt Western social norms and have smaller families, while impoverished rural Muslims started to breed uncontrollably and have far more children than they could afford.
Because of this, many young men in Islamic nations are now unable to afford marriage and have families who are unable to provide for them, which increases their vulnerability to radicalisation.
But in traditional Islamic civilisations, few young men needed prostitutes to satiate their sexual needs. During the Mughal era, boys typically married before turning 18. It was customary for Yemeni males to marry between the ages of 13 and 15. Among Arab Bedouins, any male that could provide had the right to marry his father's brother's daughter.
So to conclude this, few males experienced sexual frustration in traditional Muslim civilisations, and young people were married. Since it didn't take long for girls to reach marriageable age, the practice of early marriages lessened the harmful effects of polygamy, which was mostly reserved for the higher classes. You could always wait a few years and wed her daughter if you were unable to wed your cousin.
I do care about the objective truth, and that's why I read into Biology and History and try to link the parts together. Moving the goalposts here by trying to poke holes in a strawman about a mere assumption I made and making it the purpose of your reply is not good. It's a good idea to have forgotten about that by this point of your response, and I do apologize yet again anyways.
Galileo Galilei in the past was considered an extremist for rejecting geocentrism, does that mean what he said back then didn't have any value and that he deservedly be condemened to death or imprisonment for the rest of his life because of people around him.
We as incels today are determined to be extremists for pointing out the nature of women. If you fancy yourself being a moderate to normies, you will be guaranteed to lose the debate so there is no point trying to appease them or this gynocentric status quo.
The reason life has become easier for everyone not just men, is because of technology, which is produced and maintained by men. Everyone benefits from technology and scientific advancement, and the fact that we can even have pseudo-resemblance of unrestricted freedom is because of men, so this is not a good argument if you're arguing to justify undermining and restricting male sexuality which has brought about civilization whilst somehow not having the same viewpoints on male sexuality, which is a double standard in the pejorative sense.
Unless you want to live alone in a jungle by yourself, restricting female sexuality is vital for contentment for a collective group of people, and unrestricted freedom does not mean happiness, particularly when it comes to female sexual autonomy since it has been linked to demoralization in men ie. sexually frustrated men are more likely to be unco-operative to society, as we have been seeing a concurrent clear decrease in the labor force in the US, and unrestricted female involvement in public spaces has lead to a restriction in free speech and more censorship.
Despite it all, It's not like our prehistoric ancestors could go and skip the stages of culinary arts and go from eating raw meat to eating a freshly cooked hot dog using thousands of years worth of technological advances made by men which was only made possible by restricting female sexuality, so why should women be allowed to baseline it all? This is another double standard that isn't shown in our primate relatives because they are still primitive.
Oh, and take care too. And sorry if this appeared tryhard to you, I was trying to put in as much effort as possible into replying to you and the other poster, but I was a bit busy with other things so apologies for the late reply. I hope if you read all of this, that we have at least reached some sensible conclusion regarding this debate, but if you are truly a sucker for 'freedom', then surely that means living in primitiveness appeals to you more, right? I am curious to know about this (but it is up to you, I am still glad that you have acknowledged and read through my wall of text since this forum suffers from a lack of attention span and draws away effort posters), since it's not entirely bad, but keep in mind that primitive societies in the past have put limits to their sexuality too to ensure the least use of resources spent on something that could destroy the whole tribe.
Does anybody live by a fixed set of principals anymore? I thought Muslims threw faggots off of buildings.
Dnr.
Since when was any of this in response to you nigga? I responded to other posts in this thread and people like you are the reason why high effort posters disappear off this site and leave me looking elsewhere.
Also @LUCK I made a good attempt with many counter argument you and said that it's optional for you to read so slandering me won't do you any good. I thought you were up for debate, but I guess now the main purpose of my response so I could look at it as reference to defend my points in real life and if I am attacked online.
Well I never said that society should let everyone express their natural sexual desires, I merely claimed that it should let men do so, so I do not see the hypocrisy in what I said since I am not an advocate for gender equality.
Alright fair point, I have not done as much research on it as you have so you are most likely right.
Well I see your point, though I have not done an appeal to nature. If it looked that way I am sorry, it was not intentional. What I tried to say was that most primate species engage in sexual assault and that in the context of society, which is largely run by, fueled by and built by males we should try to serve the desires (to a larger degree than we do today) of this group out of pure utilitarian principle. Again, this is not a matter of "it is natural bro" it is just that women in society, even if they do not have control over their sexual reproduction, are happier and live better lives than if they were to live within most primitive societies. As you are probably well aware productivity is dropping or at the very least slowing in growth in most first world countries (I have chosen EU because I like the way the data is structured) . Anyhow the lack of innovation (that in part caused this) can be attributed by to the fact that young men, the primary drivers, simply do not bother anymore as the work isn't worth the trouble. In order to mitigate that you need to actually have society fulfill those desires. One of those desires is naturally sexual in nature so that is the rationale behind letting males s.a. women and not letting women be promiscuous.
Yeah, no I forgive you. I was kind of a cunt when I wrote my last reply to you so I need to apologize for some remarks I made regarding you too. Jesus, here since you were 15, that has to be so fucking brutal. I'm in my early 20s too, but that has to be tough.
"Arranged marriage is more common in societies which base their subsistence on agriculture and animal husbandry than in societies which base their subsistence on hunting and gathering. Accordingly, it is predicted that homosexuality would be more prevalent in the former than in the latter societies" (Abstract)
"In particular, it predicts that homosexuality would be more prevalent in societies which base their subsistence on agriculture and animal husbandry than in societies which base their subsistence on hunting and gathering. The purpose of this research is to test this prediction, and examine its evolutionary implications" (Introduction)
I think that you may have confused the expression "former (...) than latter", former refers to the first item in an enumeration, so in our case agricultural societies and latter to hunter-gatherer ones. Furthermore the fact that you have misunderstood the abstract of the study gets confirmed in its introduction. No biggie, English is not my first language either, but it appears that you understood it wrong. So I will not engage with most of your points that stem from this mistake in interpretation, in your defense it was pretty badly worded.
I fully agree with both of these points.
I did not suggest that they start becoming homosexuals out of nowhere I just claimed that certain factors like the lack of potential mates can lead to their "gay genes" activating. And I do not think that there is any practical difference between a homosexual that adheres to wider heterosexual consensus and a straight person, so yeah..... them adapting is kind of what I would like to happen. Like in the past they aught to just confirm for the sake of society (presuming that we can control female reproduction, before that there is no point in forcing homosexuals to comply).
I see your point though I never claimed that it is mostly influenced by social factors. I just claimed that social factors played a role and that it is not just genetics, as I think that you claimed. My hypothesis is supported by the number of gays that are open about their homosexuality in the modern USA compared to not too long ago. In the younger population the percentages are alarming as you probably also know, so yes there is a social component to it.
That is why I like debating you, you represent something which I want to become (a more objective individual).
That I can agree on.
No offense but traditional communities of any kind had more human welfare in mind that any modern community which is organized as to facilitate the most efficient production of capital. What I am trying to say here is that I see your point as being redundant.
Didn't know about that and yes it seems to have been a cool thing, however since agriculture began there has been a sharp decrease in males that got to reproduce so.... if you want to play it that way we would reach a pretty odd conclusion.
Buddy I am not the moderate in this discussion, I am the one advocating for less rights for women so that men can fulfill their sexual desires and continue being productive members of society.
Sure, there is no debate to be had here, life is objectively speaking easier for anyone in modern society, though is that better for everyone? I do not think so. Not everyone values comfort or old age, some of us do value freedom over the two. And to answer your question I do plan to leave this crazy society and live in the Andes somewhere as the psychological toll for existing here in Western Europe is too great for people like me. And while I am not a primitivist I am 100% a luddite and that means that I have a degree of skepticism regarding the increase in human welfare that most technology provides.
This can be easily seen in the way humans live, just to not freeze to death you need to spend close to 100$ in Europe to heat your home (this is just one example of the many contingencies one has in modern society), the fact that such a high density of people live here to begin with is only due to the superiority of the gas heater. So in highly technologized environments you are forced to work in order to survive and I interpret that as a loss of personal freedom, something which I would like to avoid as much as possible.
K
God forbid we don't have pubes on our face
Similar threads
sexualeconomist
Users who are viewing this thread
