Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Blackpill Myth Debunked: Women were never raped by cavemen

highschoolcel

highschoolcel

My jawline = Your sexlife
★★★
Joined
Feb 1, 2018
Posts
2,739
We often hear the idea that "back in the stoneage", a caveman would just find a female, and force her to have sex with him.

As if humans were some kind of feral animals randomly wandering in the forest, until, surprise, Mr Caveman meets Mrs Cavewoman and if he likes her, well, he just fucks her.

That was never the case.

Humans have never lived outside societies.

There's not such thing as an attractive female wandering alone in a hostile environment. Never. At no point.

What happens is that society organises itself and females seeks protection from strong men and have sex with them in exchange.

Ironically, only in modern, highly secured societies can attractive women wander alone in a places filled with strangers.

On the other other, the more primitive a society, the more attractive females will be locked up and highly protected.

Hence why the idea of Mr Caveman "randomly" meeting Mrs attractive and defensless Cavewoman in the wild is complete non sense and likely never happened.
 
Last edited:
yeah, cave women were Chad only too

But I think when people say that they just mean cavemen would be more open to killing other cavemen to rape their women.
This doesn't seem likely within a tribe tho since they needed each other more than in the modern age.
 
yeah, cave women were Chad only too

But I think when people say that they just mean cavemen would be more open to killing other cavemen to rape their women.
This doesn't seem likely within a tribe tho since they needed each other more than in the modern age.

Probably more likely than today, but also, probably not that likely.

Especially in High IQ, slow life races.

Collaborating with another tribe would almost always be more beneficial that waging war.

Trying to kill a member of the opposite tribe to steal their resources (such as women) would likely be the beginning of escalating violence, which is why smarter tribes would try to prevent such things from happening.

Some guys see a hot chick in the street and think " Back in the stone age I could have just raped her ".

Forgetting that :

1. Back in the stone age you would probably have been a slave
2. Even if free to wander around, you just wouldn't have randomly encountered a hot female alone in the wild
 
its normie cope
 
Probably more likely than today, but also, probably not that likely.

Especially in High IQ, slow life races.

Collaborating with another tribe would almost always be more beneficial that waging war.

Trying to kill a member of the opposite tribe to steal their resources (such as women) would likely be the beginning of escalating violence, which is why smarter tribes would try to prevent such things from happening.
I disagree

There's no escalating violence if you raid them and murder them all in one go.
And if you don't attack then their continued existence is a sword of Damocles above your head.
 
I disagree

There's no escalating violence if you raid them and murder them all in one go.
And if you don't attack then their continued existence is a sword of Damocles above your head.

That's assuming one tribe is overwhelmingly superior to the next tribe.

Which would be pretty rare.

Even when that would the case, the superior tribe would still benefit from not utterly destroying the other tribe, instead, they would take the leadership of the next tribe and take a portion of the resources they produce, usually using taxes.

That's what the roman empire did, for example.
 
That's assuming one tribe is overwhelmingly superior to the next tribe.
I'd say it's the opposite. If you're equal or inferior then you need to be aggressive, take them by surprise and wipe them out.

benefit from not utterly destroying the other tribe
Too risky in my opinion.
If you look at late stone age mass graves, they usually killed all the males, men and boys, as well as the old women but they took the young women and the girls.

That's what the roman empire did, for example.
True, but an empire has more staying power. The roman empire can suffer defeats and come out mostly unscathed, whereas if you're a small tribe you're one defeat away from extinction.
 
There's no Betty for my rubble
 
Sexual conquest in prehistoric times still probably involved powerful men with connections and a large support base (AKA another word for Chad as we know being good looking gives you bonus to acquiring power and influence) more than the average grunts who did the menial labor and dirty peasant work.
When one tribe takes over the other, do you honestly think the leader of that winning tribe will want to share the spoils of war (like the captured foids) with his lower level peons? When the Chad has more status and resources (as a stand in for money in this case) than his subordinates he'll naturally attract more women who will want to be him from the other tribes he conquers, so he ends up having more sexual partners and wives than the lowly 5/10 peon the same way medieval Kings will use their status and power to get more pussy than a peasant. Of course by today's definitions, the females from the peoples that Chad conquers can't fully consent and were coerced. And since Chads were still having most of the sex and taking more women from the tribes they conquered than your stone age grugcel that means he did more raping than them too.
In any case, it's a relatively small group of men out of the majority having sex and by extension doing the rape.
 
Last edited:
Animals rarely even rape. Male lions don’t rape female lions, they have to seduce them. Presumably it’s the same with chimps. Why would humans?
 
There was an archaeogenetic study which showed that the diversity of paternal haplogroups across the world was reduced after the introduction of agriculture, whilst maternal haplogroups stayed the same, ie. only a minority of men had children but most women did.
HUMANS HAD MORE SEXUAL EQUALITY AS CAVEMEN THAN AS FARMERS
 
Also people greatly overestimate the population density during the Stone Age. Most of the time in most areas you would only rarely meet people outside of your own tribe, and if you had trouble with other tribes, you would just migrate. You would definitely not take one of your own tribe's women by force, but you wouldn't have high chances of being able to do so with another tribe's woman either.
 

Similar threads

Clavicus Vile
Replies
7
Views
118
PolskiKartofel
PolskiKartofel
Lv99_BixNood
Replies
10
Views
225
ilieknothing
ilieknothing
sultryloser
Replies
35
Views
638
highschoolcel
highschoolcel
SandNiggerKANG
Replies
46
Views
2K
Alrond2907
Alrond2907

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top