Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Thurs nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts with FREE Prizes!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE Live AFA Seminar! See locations and details.


Scam free! Check out Christian Filipina - Meet Asian women with Christian values! Members screened.
Exclusive book offer! 75% off! How to Meet, Date and Marry Your Filipina Wife



View Active Topics       Latest 100 Topics       View Your Posts       FAQ Topics       Switch to Mobile


Alpha Male bullshit and Evo-psyche.

Discuss and talk about any general topic.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

Alpha Male bullshit and Evo-psyche.

Postby theprimebait » Sun Dec 01, 2013 8:18 pm

if you read the manosphere you'll hear alot of stuff about alpha males hoarding women,and how humans have a sexulity akin to chimpanzees or gorillas.this is bullshit.women were,in the apst,Polyamorous.meaning,they f***ed alot of men.

Evo psych gets mate selection completely wrong. If human hunter-gatherers were polygamous harem societies, dimorphism would be even more pronounced in humans than it really is. Male gorillas are twice as large as female gorillas because the biggest and baddest alpha male gorillas left standing got to mate with the female gorillas. Male gorillas have small penises relative to their body mass because when after killing off their competition, they don't need a big cock and lots of sperm concentration to ensure that they impregnate the female gorillas. Human males on the other hand are only 20% bigger and 10% taller than human females. Much like bonobo dimorphism. Because human males competed primarily on sperm wars instead. Men with larger penises and more sperm concentration were better able to impregnate the females. This is why supposedly only 40% of men managed to pass on their genes. But yet they lack the level of dimorphism that you see in gorillas. Humans however have the largest penises relative to their body size among the Great Apes. And our sperm concentration is either the highest or among the highest (in the company of bonobos and chimps, whom have the biggest balls of all Great Apes) among the Great Apes.

As was described in Sex at Dawn, pretty much all the males in a tribe had sexual access to the females in their tribe. But only one man wins the sperm war competition to fertilize the human female's egg.

With the move towards agriculture and thus monogamy within the past 10,000 years, things changed and things moved towards mate selection moreso than sperm competition. But the vast majority of human history was characterized by sperm wars rather than mate selection. Mate selection is a relatively new, agricultural world phenomena for humans. Humans, like bonobos, are a naturally promiscuous, polyamourous Great Ape with both males and females being poly. Gorillas on the other hand are naturally polygamous (they have an alpha male harem structure where the male has multiple partners, the females just one).




Genetically, bonobos are our closest Great Ape ancestors. Not chimpanzees. This was discussed in Sex at Dawn. It's a common misconception that chimps are our closest ancestors. Chimps have similar dimorphism as humans and bonobos but very violent while bonobos are relatively peaceful.


Quote:
Originally Posted by djfranktank View Post
What about the neoteny of humans in general, instead of the need for a greater sexual dimorphism, a greater emphasis was put not soley on brute sexual dimorphism of the man but other traits. i.e Money, stauts and other things not related soley on physical robustness. Advance human brains in general might lead to this.


Before agriculture, humans lived in a hand-to-mouth existence. Money wasn't even a thing back then. For the vast majority of our human history. The ability to provide meat and protection was very important. This is why human males are supposed to be 10% taller and 20% bigger than human females. But it's not purely about brute strength. Humans have tools and weapons so we don't need to be f***ing massive like gorillas.




this makes alot of sence,money is a new concept,no rich guy is an Alpha.humans don't even have the alpha/Beta dichotomy.

its just Psycho-Babble from Evolutionary Psychology wich is a bunk science akin to Creationism.


all women are promiscouis.as are all men.polyamorous is a better word.they don't care if youre alpha or Beta.all humans gott o mate in the past.

now I am not saying we should return to such mate selections.just because something is natural doesn't make it good .

whats good for society isn't always natural.I am a strong advocate of patriarchy as seen in Islamic religions.limit women's financial freedom,their education,their mobility,and their property owning rights.I said limit,not completely do away with.

Nature is amoral.
theprimebait
Junior Poster
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 7:02 am







Postby theprimebait » Sun Dec 01, 2013 8:24 pm

The only reason paternity mattered after agri,was because of property and inheritence.nothing more.

in hunter-gatherer societies it didn't matter if you were the father.

the commune of the Tribe,raised the Children.
theprimebait
Junior Poster
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 7:02 am

Postby Cornfed » Sun Dec 01, 2013 8:37 pm

The body size comparisons could tend to suggest that we are half way between polygamous gorillas and monogamous apes like gibbons, where the males and females are generally of similar size and mate for life.

The only reason paternity mattered after agri,was because of property and inheritence.nothing more.

That and giving men a long term genetic stake in society so they had something to work and fight for.
Cornfed
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 4647
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:22 am

Postby Teal Lantern » Sun Dec 01, 2013 10:24 pm

theprimebait wrote:The only reason paternity mattered after agri,was because of property and inheritence.nothing more.

in hunter-gatherer societies it didn't matter if you were the father.

the commune of the Tribe,raised the Children.


Look at current communities where paternity "doesn't matter".
Things aren't going too well. Those that can escape ... do.
не поглеждай назад. 8)

"Even an American judge is unlikely to award child support for imputed children." - FredOnEverything
User avatar
Teal Lantern
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:48 pm
Location: Briar Patch, Universe 25

Postby theprimebait » Sun Dec 01, 2013 10:37 pm

All monogamous species.the females cheat.there is alot of cuckoldry.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/birds- ... d=18949572

in all species,previousely,thought to be monogamous,the females cuckold the males.
theprimebait
Junior Poster
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 7:02 am

Postby HouseMD » Sun Dec 01, 2013 11:58 pm

Monogamy isn't natural, as the above post proves. It provides no advantage for males, but has many advantages for females.

I'm also amused by the fact that humans were considered peaceful. In our natural state, we are anything but.
User avatar
HouseMD
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1198
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:20 am
Location: Buried Under a Pile of Books

Postby navigator » Mon Dec 02, 2013 12:37 am

With regards to who benefits from a monogamous system (and who doesn't), I agree with what was written in The Misandry Bubble:

To provide 'beta' men an incentive to produce far more economic output than needed just to support themselves while simultaneously controlling the hypergamy of women that would deprive children of interaction with their biological fathers, all major religions constructed an institution to force constructive conduct out of both genders while penalizing the natural primate tendencies of each. This institution was known as 'marriage'. Societies that enforced monogamous marriage made sure all beta men had wives, thus unlocking productive output out of these men who in pre-modern times would have had no incentive to be productive. Women, in turn, received a provider, a protector, and higher social status than unmarried women, who often were trapped in poverty. When applied over an entire population of humans, this system was known as 'civilization'.

All societies that achieved great advances and lasted for multiple centuries followed this formula with very little deviation, and it is quite remarkable how similar the nature of monogamous marriage was across seemingly diverse cultures. Societies that deviated from this were quickly replaced. This 'contract' between the sexes was advantageous to beta men, women over the age of 35, and children, but greatly curbed the activities of alpha men and women under 35 (together, a much smaller group than the former one). Conversely, the pre-civilized norm of alpha men monopolizing 3 or more young women each, replacing aging ones with new ones, while the masses of beta men fight over a tiny supply of surplus/aging women, was chaotic and unstable, leaving beta men violent and unproductive, and aging mothers discarded by their alpha mates now vulnerable to poverty. So what happens when the traditional controls of civilization are lifted from both men and women?
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
- Voltaire
navigator
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:01 pm

Postby HouseMD » Mon Dec 02, 2013 12:52 am

navigator wrote:With regards to who benefits from a monogamous system (and who doesn't), I agree with what was written in The Misandry Bubble:

To provide 'beta' men an incentive to produce far more economic output than needed just to support themselves while simultaneously controlling the hypergamy of women that would deprive children of interaction with their biological fathers, all major religions constructed an institution to force constructive conduct out of both genders while penalizing the natural primate tendencies of each. This institution was known as 'marriage'. Societies that enforced monogamous marriage made sure all beta men had wives, thus unlocking productive output out of these men who in pre-modern times would have had no incentive to be productive. Women, in turn, received a provider, a protector, and higher social status than unmarried women, who often were trapped in poverty. When applied over an entire population of humans, this system was known as 'civilization'.

All societies that achieved great advances and lasted for multiple centuries followed this formula with very little deviation, and it is quite remarkable how similar the nature of monogamous marriage was across seemingly diverse cultures. Societies that deviated from this were quickly replaced. This 'contract' between the sexes was advantageous to beta men, women over the age of 35, and children, but greatly curbed the activities of alpha men and women under 35 (together, a much smaller group than the former one). Conversely, the pre-civilized norm of alpha men monopolizing 3 or more young women each, replacing aging ones with new ones, while the masses of beta men fight over a tiny supply of surplus/aging women, was chaotic and unstable, leaving beta men violent and unproductive, and aging mothers discarded by their alpha mates now vulnerable to poverty. So what happens when the traditional controls of civilization are lifted from both men and women?

Huh... Women will sleep around with alphas and pop out their kids before being tossed aside to single motherdom while beta males will give up on being productive and just play video games and watch porn all day. Since the government supports poor mothers and the elderly, they won't die but will instead slowly stain the few remaining people that are still producing anything, eventually collapsing society due to a lack of funds by which the government can support its massive population of freeloaders, deadbeats, elderly, and disabled.

I can see why this is a bad thing.
User avatar
HouseMD
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1198
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:20 am
Location: Buried Under a Pile of Books

Postby navigator » Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:04 am

HouseMD wrote:
navigator wrote:With regards to who benefits from a monogamous system (and who doesn't), I agree with what was written in The Misandry Bubble:

To provide 'beta' men an incentive to produce far more economic output than needed just to support themselves while simultaneously controlling the hypergamy of women that would deprive children of interaction with their biological fathers, all major religions constructed an institution to force constructive conduct out of both genders while penalizing the natural primate tendencies of each. This institution was known as 'marriage'. Societies that enforced monogamous marriage made sure all beta men had wives, thus unlocking productive output out of these men who in pre-modern times would have had no incentive to be productive. Women, in turn, received a provider, a protector, and higher social status than unmarried women, who often were trapped in poverty. When applied over an entire population of humans, this system was known as 'civilization'.

All societies that achieved great advances and lasted for multiple centuries followed this formula with very little deviation, and it is quite remarkable how similar the nature of monogamous marriage was across seemingly diverse cultures. Societies that deviated from this were quickly replaced. This 'contract' between the sexes was advantageous to beta men, women over the age of 35, and children, but greatly curbed the activities of alpha men and women under 35 (together, a much smaller group than the former one). Conversely, the pre-civilized norm of alpha men monopolizing 3 or more young women each, replacing aging ones with new ones, while the masses of beta men fight over a tiny supply of surplus/aging women, was chaotic and unstable, leaving beta men violent and unproductive, and aging mothers discarded by their alpha mates now vulnerable to poverty. So what happens when the traditional controls of civilization are lifted from both men and women?

Huh... Women will sleep around with alphas and pop out their kids before being tossed aside to single motherdom while beta males will give up on being productive and just play video games and watch p**n all day. Since the government supports poor mothers and the elderly, they won't die but will instead slowly stain the few remaining people that are still producing anything, eventually collapsing society due to a lack of funds by which the government can support its massive population of freeloaders, deadbeats, elderly, and disabled.

I can see why this is a bad thing.


I don't get the "huh" part because you are basically agreeing with what the Misandry Bubble author wrote.
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
- Voltaire
navigator
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:01 pm

Postby HouseMD » Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:06 am

navigator wrote:
HouseMD wrote:
navigator wrote:With regards to who benefits from a monogamous system (and who doesn't), I agree with what was written in The Misandry Bubble:

To provide 'beta' men an incentive to produce far more economic output than needed just to support themselves while simultaneously controlling the hypergamy of women that would deprive children of interaction with their biological fathers, all major religions constructed an institution to force constructive conduct out of both genders while penalizing the natural primate tendencies of each. This institution was known as 'marriage'. Societies that enforced monogamous marriage made sure all beta men had wives, thus unlocking productive output out of these men who in pre-modern times would have had no incentive to be productive. Women, in turn, received a provider, a protector, and higher social status than unmarried women, who often were trapped in poverty. When applied over an entire population of humans, this system was known as 'civilization'.

All societies that achieved great advances and lasted for multiple centuries followed this formula with very little deviation, and it is quite remarkable how similar the nature of monogamous marriage was across seemingly diverse cultures. Societies that deviated from this were quickly replaced. This 'contract' between the sexes was advantageous to beta men, women over the age of 35, and children, but greatly curbed the activities of alpha men and women under 35 (together, a much smaller group than the former one). Conversely, the pre-civilized norm of alpha men monopolizing 3 or more young women each, replacing aging ones with new ones, while the masses of beta men fight over a tiny supply of surplus/aging women, was chaotic and unstable, leaving beta men violent and unproductive, and aging mothers discarded by their alpha mates now vulnerable to poverty. So what happens when the traditional controls of civilization are lifted from both men and women?

Huh... Women will sleep around with alphas and pop out their kids before being tossed aside to single motherdom while beta males will give up on being productive and just play video games and watch p**n all day. Since the government supports poor mothers and the elderly, they won't die but will instead slowly stain the few remaining people that are still producing anything, eventually collapsing society due to a lack of funds by which the government can support its massive population of freeloaders, deadbeats, elderly, and disabled.

I can see why this is a bad thing.


I don't get the "huh" part because you are basically agreeing with what the Misandry Bubble author wrote.

It was a contemplative huh, not a sarcastic one. I was pondering implications.
User avatar
HouseMD
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1198
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:20 am
Location: Buried Under a Pile of Books

Postby navigator » Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:08 am

HouseMD wrote:
navigator wrote:
HouseMD wrote:
navigator wrote:With regards to who benefits from a monogamous system (and who doesn't), I agree with what was written in The Misandry Bubble:

To provide 'beta' men an incentive to produce far more economic output than needed just to support themselves while simultaneously controlling the hypergamy of women that would deprive children of interaction with their biological fathers, all major religions constructed an institution to force constructive conduct out of both genders while penalizing the natural primate tendencies of each. This institution was known as 'marriage'. Societies that enforced monogamous marriage made sure all beta men had wives, thus unlocking productive output out of these men who in pre-modern times would have had no incentive to be productive. Women, in turn, received a provider, a protector, and higher social status than unmarried women, who often were trapped in poverty. When applied over an entire population of humans, this system was known as 'civilization'.

All societies that achieved great advances and lasted for multiple centuries followed this formula with very little deviation, and it is quite remarkable how similar the nature of monogamous marriage was across seemingly diverse cultures. Societies that deviated from this were quickly replaced. This 'contract' between the sexes was advantageous to beta men, women over the age of 35, and children, but greatly curbed the activities of alpha men and women under 35 (together, a much smaller group than the former one). Conversely, the pre-civilized norm of alpha men monopolizing 3 or more young women each, replacing aging ones with new ones, while the masses of beta men fight over a tiny supply of surplus/aging women, was chaotic and unstable, leaving beta men violent and unproductive, and aging mothers discarded by their alpha mates now vulnerable to poverty. So what happens when the traditional controls of civilization are lifted from both men and women?

Huh... Women will sleep around with alphas and pop out their kids before being tossed aside to single motherdom while beta males will give up on being productive and just play video games and watch p**n all day. Since the government supports poor mothers and the elderly, they won't die but will instead slowly stain the few remaining people that are still producing anything, eventually collapsing society due to a lack of funds by which the government can support its massive population of freeloaders, deadbeats, elderly, and disabled.

I can see why this is a bad thing.


I don't get the "huh" part because you are basically agreeing with what the Misandry Bubble author wrote.

It was a contemplative huh, not a sarcastic one. I was pondering implications.


Ah, misunderstanding on my part.
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
- Voltaire
navigator
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:01 pm

Postby Ghost » Mon Dec 02, 2013 3:54 am

Monogamy and civilization are inseparable. What we are seeing now is Western civilization revert to a "state of nature." Most men didn't pass on their genes in pre-history because they were not given exclusive access to any woman. It's common knowledge by now that women are not monogamous or even polyamorous - they are hypergamous. That is, they to mate with only the "best" man/men. Civilization exploded onto earth thousands of years ago because of monogamy: it gave "beta" men a reason to create and sustain. Thus we got civilization: literature, arts, agriculture, medicine, infrastructure...economies.

Now that the Western world is regressing again...what I want to know is what is the final result. There's no where else to run to on planet earth. No places left to colonize and corrupt. So it looks like the worst of human nature will be overcome (not likely) or perhaps we'll end up locked into a permanent global ghetto that never emerges from its brutishness.
Ghost
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 5749
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:23 am

Postby Cornfed » Mon Dec 02, 2013 4:05 am

Ghost wrote:Monogamy and civilization are inseparable. What we are seeing now is Western civilization revert to a "state of nature."

Except it is not even a state of nature because the regime is subsidizing and protecting various low-quality assholes at the expense of people of ability.
Cornfed
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 4647
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:22 am

Postby theprimebait » Mon Dec 02, 2013 4:10 am

Ghost wrote:Monogamy and civilization are inseparable. What we are seeing now is Western civilization revert to a "state of nature." Most men didn't pass on their genes in pre-history because they were not given exclusive access to any woman. It's common knowledge by now that women are not monogamous or even polyamorous - they are hypergamous. That is, they to mate with only the "best" man/men. Civilization exploded onto earth thousands of years ago because of monogamy: it gave "beta" men a reason to create and sustain. Thus we got civilization: literature, arts, agriculture, medicine, infrastructure...economies.

Now that the Western world is regressing again...what I want to know is what is the final result. There's no where else to run to on planet earth. No places left to colonize and corrupt. So it looks like the worst of human nature will be overcome (not likely) or perhaps we'll end up locked into a permanent global ghetto that never emerges from its brutishness.



bullshit

Hypergamy is a forced state within civilization.in nature,our natural state,women were anything BUT hypergamous .

Alpha males do not exist in hunter gatherer societies.they exist in agricultural ones.

Hypergamy,alphadom,and ''status''and resources as a means of hoarding the top women is a new phenomnon.

more oft-repeated manosphere bullshit.women do not mate with the ''best''man.this is manospherian myth.looka round you.average girls date average guys.hot girls date hot guys and men of their own calibre.nothing hypergamous about that.

''Best''man is totally subjective.


Image

Image

a poor guy who looks like that could be a best man to some women,while a average looking rich guy could be the ebst men to another one.

women go for the best man they can GET,relative to those who seek them out.if you think every woman is getting suited by tall handsome or rich studs you're deluded.

the main butthurt in the manosphere is that women go for men on their level,instead of low DHV bums.manospherians are essentially butthurt they cannot practice the hypergamy they yearn,but then they project it unto women.

again:

in nature women let all kinds of men f**k them,incels,hot dudes,buff dudes,short dudesetc

who ever's sperm was strongest won.

simple.and don't get me started on ''civilization''.for most of human history(up into the 19'40's)civilization benefited a top elite,while inflicting poverty,misery,and disease on everyone else.Hunter gatherer societies are remarkebely fair.

Civilization is a exploitative system to the benefit of a few.

ITT:butthurt incels that know without ''monogamy''they can't get laid.project hypergamy on women,when they are Hypergamous but are pissed they can't get what they want.

manosphere:pathetic male versions of fat feminists.
theprimebait
Junior Poster
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 7:02 am

Postby theprimebait » Mon Dec 02, 2013 4:14 am

Cornfed wrote:
Ghost wrote:Monogamy and civilization are inseparable. What we are seeing now is Western civilization revert to a "state of nature."

Except it is not even a state of nature because the regime is subsidizing and protecting various low-quality assholes at the expense of people of ability.


lmao.the only thing that matters in nature is passing on your genes and survival.genetic fitness.sperm quality.

those who can do so with ease(Black men,Studs,handsome men,alpha type men)=high quality

those who cannot(Geeks,and limp wristed but''smart''IT nerds,libertarian tradcons)=low quality

noone cares about your abilities to enrich some old bastards.


ITT:incels who hate they are on the shitty stick of nature.
theprimebait
Junior Poster
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 7:02 am

Next

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], JohnDoeBigBaller, nezel, Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests