Promoting a great comment by “John” from my previous post “Roissy is correct”
“20 yo women who were consciously expecting to spend 10 years getting laid by a variety of studs before even thinking about selecting a father for their childâ€
This is the true market shift. Women today are allowed to do what they want, so they maximize the benefit derived from having a hot young female body. This means a variety of temporary relationships with the hottest, most charismatic men they can find, followed by marriage with one or two kids to their “best friend†who is usually an attractive beta provider of similar age.
Having a baby traps them at home and prematurely degrades their hotness. Being legally bound to a single man prevents them from maximizing the enjoyment they can receive from sex.
So the fittest and most desirable women these days are just as commitment averse as the most alpha of cads. It’s not until their glory run is over and their looks start to slip that they even start to consider marriage and family.
At that point, if they have managed their looks well, cultivated their charm, avoided becoming totally insane, and didn’t wait too long — they can still EASILY scoop up a quality man.
The mating market power of the attractive 18-25 year old female trumps everything else, however, the alpha male’s trump card is longevity. He can fuck prime age women (though not lock them down) into his 50s.
Not even trying to lock them down is key, because it is always sure to drive them away if they are pre-baby-rabies. This is the fruit of sexual liberation — a sexual utopia for high achievers who enjoy high quality and quantity of sexual relationships, with varying levels frustration and internet porn for everyone else.
All while the birthrate plummets because it is individually optimal for prime fertility females to keep those peak attractiveness years for themselves by delaying reproduction. Women will make this choice every single time if given the option.
In the ancestral environment, in the environment of evolutionary adaptation, this behavior would have resulted in the hot chick getting pregnant to an alpha male at thirteen, and then married to a beta male at fourteen, and then stuck with that beta male, which is optimal for the individual female in that environment, and not too intolerably harsh on the beta male, given that the alpha male probably had a spear and sword and was pretty good with them, and infant mortality was mighty high.
In the current environment, however, this behavior is apt to continue to age thirty or so, which is pathological, and extremely harsh on the beta male. This is analogous to our love of sweet things being optimal in an environment where the only sweet things are ripe fruit. With contraception and abortion, women are free to overindulge in a supernormal stimulus. In the ancestral environment, this behavior ended with them settling for a beta male at fourteen. In our environment, this behavior ends with them settling for a beta male at thirty.
As we can see human society is maladapted due to the revolution of birth control and also allowing women to vote themselves into the workforce, leading to the current western dysgenic fertility crisis.
Most beta men seem able to find some avenue to prevent themselves going postal as a result of the out of control female hypergamy but every year we get a new incelrage spree killing; George Sodini, Elliot Rodgers, Adam Lanza, etc..
Well, I know we had this debate before, but I think you are mis-defining “ancestral environment.” The environment in which women spent 99% of their time between the monkey era and today was a polyamorous one. In such an environment, yes, she would begin having sex at 13 — but would NOT have had to make a “decision” on an individual man at 14. That would not have served the interests of a small hunter gatherer tribe at all. Far more helpful for the tribe would be the woman taking sexual interest in a variety of men, often in succession, often in the same night. Much better for group cohesion among the males — who needed to trust each other with their lives every single day, in hunting and warfare.
So, from this perspective, what is UN-natural is a hot 20-year-old woman locking herself down with one man for the next 60 years. Yes, it makes sense from a patriarchal standpoint (create a strong, rich, high-IQ society). But from an individual woman’s perspective, life is already good enough right now and the opportunity cost of handing over all her sexual fun years to one beta male is just astronomical. There is simply not sufficient payoff for it. Especially in today’s fun-starved society. “Girls just wanna have fun” is right. Schopenhauer correctly saw that women’s ability to enjoy the present more than a man as being their best attribute.
Whites are not hunter-gatherers, and hunter-gatherers like the San and the Yanomami are not really as polyamorous as perverts claim.
San polyamory reflects social collapse – it is more widespread prostitution of San to Bantu than polyamory.
Yanomami absolutely not polyamorous in the slightest. Will kill unfaithful women and adulterous men without hesitation and with widespread social support. Girls marry for life between age nine and age twelve. Yanomami system seems likely to have been typical of our ancestors.
“Yanomami system seems likely to have been typical of our ancestors.”
Which gainsays the post, at least in part.
Let me HELP: we need to be MEN, and yes this entails risk.
As opposed to the certainty of extinction.
1. “Sex at dawn” is a load of hogwash
2. The human brain can only grow with substantial amounts of calorie dense and protein dense foods, which cannot be obtained by gathering, only by hunting. Thus human children have been dependent on large male inputs for as long as we have been human. Thus patriarchy is as old as domesticated fire.
Well, sure, children have been dependent on meat supplied by male hunters. But that is not inconsistent with polyamory. Like I said, the men all hunt together, share the food with the women, and boink together. The only reason you ever would need paternal certainty would be if there were some ASSETS to hand down to the next of kin. But in a subsistence economy there are no assets, so paternity doesn’t matter. So why get hung up about it? Why create tension with the man you’re going to depend on tomorrow with your life over having sole access to a woman? Doesn’t make sense.
also, civilization is not incompatible with communism. The men all work together, share the food and the women, and boink together. The only reason you ever would need capital is if there was some entrepreneurialism to fund. But in a subsistence economy there is no entrepreneuralism so capital doesn’t matter…
The problem with communism is the removal of incentives to excellence and creativity. Given how it works against human nature such a system subsists on massive human bloodshed. A total of 100+ million deaths in the 20th century alone.
Humans just are not like that. Frequently wind up killing each other over the women and killing the women for cheating on them. And if they manage to avoid that outcome, as sometimes they do, then, lacking paternal certainty, they predate on the women and children rather than supporting them. In societies without clear fatherhood, women and children support the men. The men do not work, nor do they defend the women or the group. The men take the food from the women and the children.
I can see how you can get to that point from a philosophical starting position … but the anthropological and biological data are not consistent with that view. If you’re going to call the studies cited in Sex at Dawn bunk, well, I don’t have anything else to throw at you because it’s not my field. But I found the data from the book overwhelmingly compelling, and I’ve never seen anyone debunk the author’s arguments in a systematic way. They just snipe at him. If anyone’s got a good debunking of it I’d be happy to read it.
I suppose, though, that I could make a different sort of case. You’re arguing that modern hot women need to suck it up, get married at 20 and pump out babies. But in the old days life was far more social. Extended families were more of a real thing. Now if you get married young, you are much more shutting yourself off with one person. That’s harder on young women than young men. And there’s no logical rationale for young women to do it. You’re not really offering them a carrot here, or a stick for that matter.
One thing the Sex at Dawn data offer is an EXPLANATION of why young women want to be serially polyamorous. If you are saying they are “really” monogamous and are being led astray, well, that’s a very hard argument to win.
What is ridiculous about “Sex at Dawn” is not the fucking, it is the socialism.
We know how males behave. Sharing women is difficult, and apt to result in intolerably high levels of homicide and low levels of social cohesion. To stop it from resulting in homicide, need police, who were none too common in the ancestral environment. Societies in which paternity is uncertain have low, and usually massively negative, levels of male investment, where pimps predate upon hos and bitches, where men do not work, nor do they fight in defense of their society, nor in defense of women and children.
What is ridiculous about “sex at dawn” is not the proposition that men and women are and were apt to screw around, now or in the past, but that in the past they happily screwed around in a happy glorious socialist utopia without it resulting in the consequences that one would logically expect.
Existing societies that behave as imagined in “Sex at Dawn”, primitive or advanced, suffer from the pathologies that one would expect. Neither moderns nor our ancestors, nor currently existing primitive societies, can successfully reproduce, culturally or biologically, under that system.
In the society imagined in “Sex at Dawn” what the optimal way for a male to behave?
Answer. You carry a big stick, about as thick as your wrist, and as long as you are tall. Any time you see a woman who has not recently screwed you, you hit her with the stick. Hard. Then hit her again. Any time you see a child hanging around a woman that you did not screw some years back, you kill it with the stick.
You don’t do any hunting or gardening or gathering. You intercept women collecting food for children, smack them around with the big stick, and take their food.
Which is pretty much how males in such societies do behave.
You are relying on anthropological data from Margaret Meade and Tiernan and similar. Margaret Meade reported that Samoans enjoyed the “Sex at Dawn” lifestyle. The actual practice, which she herself witnessed, was that part of the wedding ceremony was public inspection of the bride’s virginity. If the bride failed inspection, was beaten to death in front of the wedding guests.
The anthropological data shows that anthropologists lie.
The biological data shows that sexual immorality was and is extremely common, but it does not show you could get caught in sexual immorality and not get beaten to death.
“If you are saying they are “really†monogamous and are being led astray, well, that’s a very hard argument to win.”
Did you read the post?
The incentives for women are pushing them away from monogamy.
Monogamy is necessary for civilization to exist and even past that for people not to breed themselves into all behaving like Africans – whereupon civilization is impossible.
Nowhere does jim argue that monogamy is “natural” or that women are naturally monogamous except in that women naturally accept it when they’re restrained because they’re women – the smaller, weaker sex.
Those restraint are exactly as natural as Western civilization.
Steve … Yes, I thought that objection would come up, re my not having read the post. I read it a couple times out of concern I was making precisely the error you suggest I am making. Perhaps I am reading between the lines anyway, in which case you are right.
But either way, you make the following statement:
“Women naturally accept [restraint into monogamy] when they’re restrained because they’re women – the smaller, weaker sex. Those restraints are exactly as natural as Western civilization.”
This begs the question of whether western civilization is natural if it relies on “restraint” of half the population — ad infinitum. To ask the question is to answer it. “No.”
Anyway you can see where society is headed: An Elysium-like situation where 20-40% live a reasonable facsimile of monogamy/nuclear families and everyone else lives some variation of Sex at Dawn. Productivity will be high enough to make this passably feasible.
This only works if the twenty percent pay taxes to take care of the children of eighty percent, and put the mothers of the eighty percent into makework quasi government jobs and the fathers of the eighty percent in jail, which is not a particularly natural situation.
Women are like dogs. They are unhappy without an owner. Does this mean that dogs do not need leashes? Of course dogs need leashes. That is what makes them dogs and not wolves.
I can see that my whole line of argument here is stalled unless I cough up some specifics of the Sex at Dawn argument so here are some things to ponder:
* Why do women have multiple orgasms?
* Why is there a de facto SCOOP at the end of the male penis?
* Why do men finish much quicker than women?
* Why do women make so much noise during sex … seeming to lose all shame that they would normally have around sex?
* Why do women actually have sperm-selector guys within their wombs (or ovaries or whatever) to help out some sperm and not help others?
* Why do male sperm actually have “blocker” sperm mixed in among them?
There are plenty of other arguments in the book … these are just some I remember off the top of my head.
These are all consistent with low but non zero levels of sperm competition – which in fact we observe. No one doubts that “Sex at Dawn” behavior happens from time to time in all places, and a lot of the time in some places. The question is whether this normal or pathological.
Was the “Sex at Dawn” society a socialist utopia of cooperation, equality, and social justice, or a hell hole of violence, largely violence directed against unprotected women and fatherless children?
And observing it happening, it is obviously pathological. Any place where it is common has high levels of homicide and violence, low levels of male engagement with society, and low levels of male workforce participation.
Reflecting the incentives of socialism.
Speaking of which, I can’t help but notice that you seem to be channeling Hobbes more or less wholesale in your depictions of life in the state of nature. Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origins of Human Inequality gives a much more balanced and upbeat picture of how prehistoric man likely interacted with his fellows.
And Rousseau’s argument — that discord really only got ramped up once it became possible to STORE capital — is consistent with the data from Sex at Dawn as well.
I don’t see how you can equate the Sex at Dawn society with systematic pathology when obviously it must have existed for millions of years in a steady state in order for the evolutionary changes I noted above to have come about, no?
Hobbesian and Lockean anarchy are both within the human potential. Sex at Dawn promiscuity is within the human potential, as is the rule that a woman shall have sex with one man, and only one man and always be sexually available to that one man, on pain of death. Actually existent societies that approximate the sex at Dawn scenario approximate Hobbesian anarchy. They fail to reproduce and kill each other off.
Societies, however, where men respect male property rights, particularly male property rights in women, tend to be considerably more peaceful, approximating Lockean anarchy. This works best when God or the Gods have firm views on property and property rights, and command men to respect them.
Rousseaun anarchy – socialism without a strong state – leads to worse than Hobbesian anarchy. Every male kills everyone he meets on sight, pretty soon no one left. They don’t last long enough to perish by failure to reproduce and to neglect their children.
“I don’t see how you can equate the Sex at Dawn society with systematic pathology when obviously it must have existed for millions of years in a steady state in order for the evolutionary changes I noted above to have come about, no?”
Africa is dystopia.
Testicle size to body weight is greater among negros than it is in men of European and Asian descent.
Those adaptations are more prevalent in African descended men.
Getting the picture?
Either you adapt to a sex at dawn situation by becoming negros or you get Pitcairn Island.
“Though the islanders learned to survive quite comfortably by farming and fishing, violence and illness caused many problems. Much of the violence was caused by some of the mutineers and the Polynesian men wanting the same women, there being fewer women than men. Two of the women died in accidents in 1790, exacerbating the problem. Another problem was that when the land was divided between the families, the Polynesian men were not given any property and were treated like slaves by some of the mutineers, particularly Williams and McCoy. Two of the Polynesian men were killed by another Polynesian man, by order of the mutineers. The violence culminated one day in September or October 1793, when all four of the remaining Polynesian men attempted to massacre the mutineers. Martin, Christian, Mills, Brown and Williams were killed. The Polynesian men soon began fighting among themselves, however. One was killed during this fight, another was killed by one of the women, one was killed by Quintal and McCoy and a final one was killed by Young. This murder of nearly half of the island’s population dramatically changed the community. With many of the mutineers having children with their wives, women and children began to outnumber the men. The women became dissatisfied and tried to leave the island. When this failed, they attempted to kill the men, but they eventually became reconciled.”
Yeah, paradise.
>You carry a big stick, about as thick as your wrist, and as long as you are tall. Any time you see a woman who has not recently screwed you, you hit her with the stick. Hard. Then hit her again. Any time you see a child hanging around a woman that you did not screw some years back, you kill it with the stick.
Any man behaving in this manner in any society would quickly find himself murdered by the woman in his sleep, or by her brothers. Very quickly, such a society would lose sexual dimorphism, as women capable of protecting their children better would have a massive advantage. Children are a very high investment for humans in terms of resources and risk, so a society which lost a significant amount of children to this kind of behavior would very quickly disintegrate, or at least lost ground to any neighboring society which did not waste its resources in such a fashion. Finally, we don’t see this kind of behavior in pack species such as baboons (Aspermint recently linked to a video which showed hamadryas baboons and explained that they don’t touch females claimed by another male,) or dogs (a normal, healthy male will neither attack a female nor an unrelated pup.)
Not to say that Sex at Dawn is anything but garbage, but this scenario is also garbage.
If female humans were to behave like female cats, pretty soon male humans would behave like male cats.
Typical behavior for lions, universal behavior for male cats, occasional behavior for chimps. Among humans stepdads frequently get away with horrifying abuse of step children. If all men, or many men, or many tomcats engage in this behavior, no point for the female to oppose it, and in practice, opposition alarmingly weak. More than in the scenario I depict, but far less than you imagine.
Tomcat behavior even more vicious than lion behavior, possibly because partial domestication has caused less family formation among cats than lions.
Cats can reproduce successfully under this system because kittens grow up very rapidly. Does not work so well for humans.
I’m sorry but you guys are not substantively countering my points. I would be happy to be proven wrong but you’re not doing it. No one has offered a serious objection to the specific biological points made in Sex at Dawn. The fact that “Africa is dystopia” today has nothing to do with what it was like in pre-historic times, which is what we’re talking about. Today it is possible to store capital, back then it wasn’t. I don’t think you could look at the Bushmen of the Kalahari, for instance, and say their system is dystopic. It’s just primitive.
Now … the point about the Yanomami is more significant. I have gone back to Sex at Dawn to see what the authors have to say. It turns out that this was a big controversy within the field and the book spends about 8 pages rebutting the points made by Jim. It seems that the guy who did that work, Naplolean Chagnon, did a horrible job — practically handing out shotguns to the locals from his motorboat.
Quoting from Sex at Dawn now, p105:
” Tierney cites Chagnon’s own doctoral thesis, showing that in the thirteen years prior to this arrival no Namowei (a large branch of the Yanomami) had been killed in warfare. But during his thirteen month residence among them, ten Yanomami died in a conflict between the Namowei and the Patanowateri (another branch).”
“Kenneth Good, an anthropologist who first went to live with the Yanomami as one of Chagnon’s graduate students and stayed on for 12 years, described Chagnon as “a hit-and-run anthropologist who comes into villages with armloads of machetes to purchase cooperation for his research. Unfortunately, he creates and division wherever he goes.”
“For his part, in over a decade living among them, Good witnessed a single outbreak of war.”
And further down …
“Sponsel brought along a copy of Chagnon’s book, with its photos of fighting Yanomami warriors, as a way to explain the sort of work he was doing [to the Yanomami]. ‘Although some of the men were absorbed by the pictures, I was asked not to show them to children as they provided examples of undesirable behavior. These Yanomami did not value fierceness in any positive way.'”
There is much more along these lines but you get the idea. Chagnon was a quack who envisioned himself as a Hemingway-esque anthropologist.
Incentives are what they are. People respond to incentives. Socialism has bad incentives, sexual socialism has considerably worse incentives. People respond to incentives today, therefore would have responded to incentives at Dawn – but even more so in the absence of a strong state. Women can only behave the way they do today because of the protection of a strong state. Absent state protection, must become the property of whoever can protect them, and his inclination to protect them depends on paternal certainty. If she changes owners by flight or abduction, previous children get killed or abandoned.
I have investigated the Napoleon Chagnon controversy. People simply lie barefaced about him, and the people he studied, for political reasons. In particular Tierney lies barefaced over and over again, has repeatedly been caught doing so, and no one cares. It is the Freeman versus Meade controversy all over again. Primitive peoples invariably and uniformly behave in horrifyingly and brutally reactionary ways. Anthropologists don’t want to admit this because it implies that sex roles, violence, inequality, and all the rest are inherent in our nature, so they just lie barefaced, inventing socialists utopias in the mists of prehistory. When someone observes actual behavior, as Chagnon and Freeman did, they get their knickers in a twist.
The matriarchal societies so beloved of anthropologists do indeed exist, but they are the matriarchy of the American ghetto: Pimps, hos, and bitches, a reflection of massive and horrifying social breakdown.
Over and over again, anthropological reports of socialism among primitive peoples have been proven to be every bit as reliable as communist reports of socialism in communist states.
Socialism is just not in human nature. So the universities lie about it.
look at niggeria. then look at detoilet. then go live in one of those places because the rent is cheap and the people there are just like us
I’ve only observed cats closely in a semi-feral state in one situation, in Iraq. We had a tomcat and two females with a litter of kittens each, one his, the other not. The several times I saw him interact with the kittens who weren’t his, he was very friendly and gentle.
Of course there are game theory dead ends, like you see with lions and ducks and such. I doubt that humans are very prone to these. I’ve been acquainted with West Africans and Haitians. They were not Haredi Jews, but their families did not resemble what you describe, nor did what they told me about their societies. The current situation, where a stepfather was completely unrelated to his wife and stepson, certainly was not a feature of the ancestral environment. People in the past tended to marry their cousins or more distant relatives, and again, a woman had her brothers and cousins (we see a degenerate form of this even in modern black American society.)
He probably was not sure which ones were his – cats are not that good at keeping track of time. Or perhaps he knew something you don’t. Female cats fuck around a lot.
Levirate marriage and father’s brother’s daughter’s marriage was not the ancestral environment. These are human artifices intended to guarantee relatedness and minimize conflicts such as step dad and step son. These are institutions created to reduce the violence.
Usual procedure was to trade sisters for wives. Sometimes, pathologically, daughters for wives. This led to low relatedness.
To the extent that societies fit the sex at dawn model, we see low relatedness and high levels of violence between step parents and step children. Absent police and penalties for murder, we would see a great deal more violence.
How about Lewis and Clark during their winter with the Mandan Indians? The Mandans freely shared their women? Or the custom in Africa of chiefs sharing their women with visitors? Or the many examples of local chiefs sharing their women with sailors in the South Seas?
This all gets back to the issue of incentives in a subsistence culture. In such an environment your primary incentive is to maintain good relations with the other men because you depend on them with your life every single day. The incentives in an INHERENTLY socialist environment (which tribal environments are) are completely different from those that exist today.
Try reading Lewis and Clark’s account, not modern cultural Marxist rewrites of Lewis and Clark, which are so different from the original on which they purport to be based as to be entirely unrecognizable.
Again, read Captain Cook’s and Joseph Banks’ accounts, not the cultural Marxist rewrites of Joseph Banks. Because iron was extremely valuable in the South Sea Islands, the South sea island menfolk were willing to prostitute their wives and daughters for rather small amounts of iron. Nonetheless, the women were the property of men, rather than the sexually liberated women imagined by Margaret Mead.
this discussion is still going on? It was utterly unserious from the beginning.
* Why do men finish much quicker than women?
Bigger question: why do feminist cum from being raped, but not from having sex with their husbands?
* Why do women make so much noise during sex … seeming to lose all shame that they would normally have around sex?
moaning in porn is faked to try to give porn a better soundtrack than the sounds of meat slapping other meat and grunting, and moaning in bed is also faked, because women think they’re supposed to sound like they do in porn. Meanwhile, the Yanomami have a taboo against grunting or making any noise during sex.
Jim … Good responses … You are taking this issue seriously. Peppermint, you are not. There’s simply no way to re-frame and re-build society (if that, in fact, is either doable or needed) without having a clear understanding of human nature. To willfully ignore the historical data leads to bad policy proposals.
Regarding women and noise, I’m not talking about porn. I’m talking about everyday women in everyday situations. In any apartment building you will hear the women screaming during sex. The interpretation in Sex at Dawn is that this is women calling in other men.
Still no rebuttal to the reason for the scoop at the end of the male penis either. Why is that there?
I don’t mean to beat this to death. I am fascinated by the topic because the implications for what one ought to do with one’s life are pretty profound. I grant that as a practical matter most women in today’s world do not really act in a polyamorous way, though it’s fair to say serial monogamy is now the norm, and that basically splits the difference between polyamory and lifetime monogamy.
I scream during sex, at least if the chick is particularly hot. I seriously doubt I am calling in other men. The male lion roars during sex like a fighter aircraft taking off.
That said, women want to know that you are alpha enough to defend your space and your women, so calling in other men is consistent with the expectation that a fight to the death shall ensue should the call be answered, with the survivor getting a big reward.
And, knowing what we know of human nature, and observing actual behavior of primitives, chances are that in the absence of the state, if another man called in, fight to the death would indeed ensue.
Given what we know of human nature, a happy pile of up of males generously sharing the woman in a good socialist man fashion is not likely, and, absent a powerful and intrusive state, a whole lot less likely.
I am perfectly sure that if I am fucking a tolerably good looking woman, and she screams a lot, and someone barges in wanting some, he is going to leave in a hurry, or one of us, possibly both of us, will surely die. Even though the state is present. And, by and large, actually observed primitives are far more jealous and violent than I am. We WEIRD people are anomalously non violent and anomalously willing to share, and we are not all that non violent and not all that willing to share.
A female lion is built for killing deer. A male lion is built for killing lions. And so it is with humans. A female, or a male before puberty, is going to find it very difficult to kill another female or another immature male using only bare hands. An adult male can easily kill another adult male bare handed, and may well do so by accident. That is what we are made for, not for being new socialist man. The penis may well be designed to scoop out other men’s sperm, but the hands are designed for a more permanent solution to the problem of other men’s sperm.
That it is there shows that immoral conduct occurs, today, and in the ancestral environment. This, however, is not evidence that in the ancestral environment, people caught in immoral conduct were likely to live.
listen carefully, faggot. Screaming during sex is seen in movies that aren’t porn but want to have sex in them. Similarly, different anime shows show lightning as having different colors.
I know that it’s fake because I have had sex with women and they have reliably not done that when I told them that i am not impressed by it.
I realize that it is difficult for you to understand that people do not always tell the truth about sex.
» I am fascinated by the topic because the implications for what one ought to do with one’s life are pretty profound. I grant that as a practical matter most women in today’s world do not really act in a polyamorous way, though it’s fair to say serial monogamy is now the norm, and that basically splits the difference between polyamory and lifetime monogamy.
You sound like you are stuck in the 1960s. These days, we have a much better grasp of game theory, evolution, and animal behavior, the last aided by excellent video cameras.
Peppermint … dude … really … calling somebody a faggot on a reactionary debate is about as r-selected as it gets.
Reactionaries don’t like faggots. Using “faggot” as an insult signals this. Like playing classical music in the mall to drive away black people.
this line of reasoning implies that women would make more noise with men they do not like, and men would not like it when women make noise. In fact, women making noise is a staple of modern porn, replacing the techno soundtracks from older porn.
Observed behavior. Women make more noise with men that they like. And men like it.
>He probably was not sure which ones were his – cats are not that good at keeping track of time. Or perhaps he knew something you don’t.
It was obvious. He looked very distinctive, and his offspring shared his looks. Meanwhile, these kittens looked like his rival, who would come around occasionally, resulting in epic battles.
>Usual procedure was to trade sisters for wives. Sometimes, pathologically, daughters for wives. This led to low relatedness.
Usual procedure, if we consider most human prehistory, was that people lived in groups of about 50, all of whom were related. Where do you think they got those wives from, Vietnam?
Among Australian aboriginals, typical system was four to eight groups. which groups tended to live a good distance apart. A lad in group A would trade his sisters. also members of group A, for ladies from group D, but would not trade women of group A within group A, nor trade outside groups A, B, C, D. And likely his mother came from group B, so he could not trade with group B, and his father’s mother came from group C, so he could not trade with group C. So the endogamous group (A+B+C+D) was pretty large and roamed over a rather large area.
Father’s brother’s daughter marriage results in excessive inbreeding. Trading women between widely separated groups provides exchange of hostages, keeping the peace and reducing inbreeding. You want to trade women with groups that are sufficiently different and separate that you might start killing each other if you don’t trade, but also sufficiently close that you might start killing each other if you don’t trade. And you want to have a reasonable choice of women to trade for, so you want the group that is eligible for trades to be large enough.
You don’t trade with the group your mother or your grandmother came from, partly for incest reasons, partly because you already have hostages. So, four groups, each large enough to support a reasonable selection of women. So, four groups of forty or so, rather than one group of fifty or so. Adds up to a lot less related than father’s brother’s daughter.
Presumably he was screwing both females, but one of the females got a quickie in behind his back. He may not have drawn the obvious implication from the appearance of the kittens.
Moaning is like sodomy. It’s said to be and thus is what a girl does for a guy she really likes, it’s shown in porn and talked about in advertisements, and more so today than in the past.
It is conceivable that women would have developed some kind of reaction to sodomy. Many women seem to have an instinctive reaction to semen in their mouth, preferring for it to be put in their vagina. But maybe they actually like sodomy, and don’t moan for me because I’m not sexy enough.
Sodomy is fun for the man precisely because it is not fun for the woman, but a demonstration of submission.
Women have told me they like sodomy; one women said she prefers it to sex with a condom, which is actually reasonable. They also all talk up their moaning. Certainly none of them want sex to be lacking in passion the way they are told monogamous Victorianism was.
So everything kgaard came with is false, but, as a male feminist, he prefers to count his condomistic trysts instead of seriously considering sex in its evolutionary and ethological context – not the least because the lie tells him he’s doing well, but the truth would not.
It takes a certain kind of autism to prefer the truth against social pressure even when it tells you you’re not as cool. Somehow, we need to make the truth cool and the lie lame. I guess we need to start with slut-shaming and find some degrading epithet for condom-using men.
“I can see how you can get to that point from a philosophical starting position … but the anthropological and biological data are not consistent with that view. If you’re going to call the studies cited in Sex at Dawn bunk, well, I don’t have anything else to throw at you because it’s not my field. But I found the data from the book overwhelmingly compelling, and I’ve never seen anyone debunk the author’s arguments in a systematic way. They just snipe at him. If anyone’s got a good debunking of it I’d be happy to read it.”
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dusk-Lifting-Shiny-Wrapping/dp/1477697284
http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP10611616.pdf
Have you heard of the darker, much less popular twin of Sex at Dawn?
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dusk-Lifting-Wrapping-Paperback/dp/B00FBBCKVK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1423536044&sr=8-1&keywords=sex+at+dusk
Ha … Looks like a bit of a rush job but I might buy it anyway. Thanks …
I read some reviews and it actually looks pretty good. Thus I have sprung for it.
Socialism can work in Dunbar-number scale societies. It can’t work in large scale setting
Plenty of Dunbar scale societies exist. Not seeing socialism work in any of them. The more primitive a society, the smaller the scale of cooperation. If they could cooperate to the extent required by socialism on the scale of the Dunbar number, they would immediately build a society with institutions a thousand times the scale of the Dunbar number.
you mean like the Mayflower Compact? See https://blog.reaction.la/economics/pilgrim-socialism/
Jim apparently there alot of studies (just googling the age of menarche and teenage pregnancy)about the negativity of teen pregnancy of female health and social outcomes. What do you make of that?
1. PC bullshit. Studies are done by committee, which tells scientist what he ought to see.
2. The women that tend to get pregnant in their teens are low in genetic fitness, undernourished, raised in single parent homes, smoke, etc. In other words low status/low income women.
It’s well known by dog breeders that you don’t breed a male or a female before they mature, meaning, well after puberty, and that in the case of a female this is bad for both her and the pups. I suppose the dog breeders have come under the sway of the NIH PC mafia?
That is an argument against girls getting pregnant at twelve and giving birth at thirteen.
It is not an argument against girls getting pregnant at fourteen and giving birth at fifteen.
That depends on genetics and nutrition, among other things. Cultural factors might be even more important: Seed of Albion says the average age of women at first marriage in some parts of England 300 years ago was mid-20s. Obviously, the English knew that women much younger could have children.
Since this apears to put civilization in danger what can be done to stop it.
Whose ancestral environment?
In my ancestral environment, a girl who showed up to the wedding without her virginity, let alone pregnant, would face massive humiliation and perhaps the death penalty. Virginity until marriage is still the norm for women in my society.
If you wish to make the case that Cochran and Harpending are wrong, and that evolution has not massively accelerated over the last 10KY, be my guest.
Also, the whole division of men by alpha/beta in any context other than modern Western society (and even there) is pretty faggy and inaccurate. The idea that a man’s worth could be estimated by the number of women he’d sweet-talked into having sex with him would be deeply alien to most societies throughout history. A man who spent a significant amount of his time chasing women to sleep with would be considered contemptible.
And in a patriarchy, this is more the case. A patriarch is respected and obeyed for his wisdom, judgement and responsibility for those under him. A patriarch who sleeps with his juniors’ wives and daughters would be set adrift or get a spear in the guts very quickly. Sexual incontinence was always considered a grave character flaw in civilized societies.
In Samoa, the setting for Margaret Mead’s fiction of happy hippie sexual socialism, beaten to death on the spot in front of the assembled wedding guests.
Great comment.
I have raised my daughter with the idea that she needs to get married young, and that is exactly what she wants to do. She daydreams about having a husband, about taking care of his home, about raising his children. All of her girlfriends, regardless of how they were raised, want exactly the same thing, male attention and admiration. They want a strong man to come home at the end of the day after fighting his battles drop the food on the table, lift her up and hug and kiss her and carry her into the bedroom. It seems that my daughter would get it from the first man who would give it to her, if I were not in the way. Based on my personal observations it seems a woman who has a strong husband who approves of her, which most every man can be if taught to be, will stay with him forever. Let us not forget that we, men of the west, are civilization builders, and we should not look at animals as examples of behavior. What is natural, is not always what is right.
OR they could be continuing with the act like a man Program being drilled into them, which means they’re continuing to submit to the Highest Status Male aka the State and our Popular Culture.
It’s not as if anyone ASKS them what they want, who cares?
They do what they’re TOLD.
What women want is children. All of what women do is instinct anyway, including being mothers [they’re born knowing how].
“In the ancestral environment, this behavior ended with them settling for a beta male at fourteen.”
Is this KNOWN or merely guessed at?
It seems a good guess from a certain POV.
Cuz Alpha had sword, etc….
Actually Swords don’t show up until Family well established. By Fathers. As has been well established by what we DO KNOW, and has been established here as well.
So where the Fuck is the Father? A timeless question.
The problem isn’t the women, it’s WHITE MEN HAVE TOO MUCH EDUCATION AND ARE FUCKING PUSSIES.
The price we pay for having scholar elites.
Yes I’m still white, but other people being Homo Sapiens when we decide to be pussies isn’t THEIR FAULT, IT’S OURS.
You people are hallucinating. Most women are not that promiscuous, which undercuts all that Alpha/Beta nonsense.The few who are truly promiscuous are generally nutcases who don’t get married, or if they do, get divorced.
Women start getting sexual feelings at a disturbingly early age. Generally marry late twenties. What do you think they are doing between when they start getting sexual feelings, and they get married?
if you deny that hook up culture and niggers exist, they will go away
(this works best in the rural northwest and midwest, but Tinder and the NAACP are moving in)
And what is the divorce rate in the modern sexually liberated west full of independent women? In the UK and the US 40% to 50% of marriages are expected to end in divorce by official statistics.
Add to those all those women who, as you mentioned, never get married in the first place and that puts the ones that get married and don’t get divorced (i.e. who are not ‘that promiscuous’) firmly in the minority.
Add to all that the fact that the women who do not get divorced mostly (if not exclusively) come from conservative families where they are strictly controlled by their fathers and taught to be very obedient of their husbands…and you may find a very, very tiny minority of women who are not naturally promiscuous, a number not much higher than a small rounding error.
So what was that about ‘most women’?
It was my comment John was referring to, but in our running discussions over several posts of yours, you have consistently missed or denied a critical point about the comment:
“It wouldn’t be surprising if there were a large rise from 1972 to today in the number of 20 yo women who were consciously expecting to spend 10 years getting laid by a variety of studs before even thinking about selecting a father for their child?”
You, Jim, are wrong that women are selecting stupid guys to have their kids with. When they are looking to have kids, they are selecting guys based in substantial measure on their assessment of the guy’s intelligence. This intense sexual selection likely promotes evolution of higher IQ. Because of sexual selection, the average guy who has kids is likely above average intelligence by more than the average woman who has kids is below it, (if in fact the mean woman having a kid is not also smarter on average than the mean woman, a question that is less clear.)
Mars will be multicultural: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8na3oQzcwCk
Gotta dress Jesus up as Mithras and Helios.
» Whether the Christians, of whom there is no certain histor-
» ical trace before c. 112, were simply a modified or disguised con-
» tinuation of the Chrestiani (i.e., the followers of a Jewish christ
» who, under the assumed name of Chrestus, evidently persuaded
» at least the rabble of the huge Jewish colony planted in Rome
» that the time to start butchering the goyim had come) cannot be
» determined. The word that Tacitus used, as shown by the original
» reading of the Medicean manuscript (which can still be seen
» beneath the erasure and “correction” by a later hand) was Chres-
» tiani (“quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat”),
» and the accuracy of that spelling is guaranteed by the fact that
» Tertullian complains in 197 A.D. and later that the members of
» his sect are called Chrestiani by the wicked pagans, which isn’t
» right at all, because the correct word is Christiani.
— Revilo P. Oliver, The Jewish Strategy
“He can fuck prime age women (though not lock them down) into his 50s.â€
Men are able to engage in coitus with young fillies in their 50’s and 60’s IF AND ONLY IF they have money. Looks help. Otherwise, old farts generally are happy with getting any type of tail.
[…] Burke. NRx culture, or tradition. A question of order. The ontology of modernity. Be the trigger (1, 2, 3, no one can say they weren’t warned). White flight (ultimate). Marxism. Fixing America. […]
[…] Burke. NRx culture, or tradition. A question of order. The ontology of modernity. Be the trigger (1, 2, 3, no one can say they weren’t warned). White flight (ultimate). Marxism. Fixing America. […]
In what sense are they “fittest”?