Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

No friends, but constantly having guys "wanting" me

Page 30 of 33 [ 513 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

05 Jul 2020, 2:29 am

cyberdad wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
This chance never occurred for humans tho! Humans always had rivals, mostly among themselves; and therefore there was always a “need” for warring. Warring leads to a more patriarchal path in evolution.


Don't forget our ancestors had to also fight 14 other species of hominid for territory and space,



I thought they only co-existed with Neanderthals? Are you talking about Homo Sapiens or much earlier?



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

05 Jul 2020, 2:34 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
This chance never occurred for humans tho! Humans always had rivals, mostly among themselves; and therefore there was always a “need” for warring. Warring leads to a more patriarchal path in evolution.


Don't forget our ancestors had to also fight 14 other species of hominid for territory and space,



I thought they only co-existed with Neanderthals? Are you talking about Homo Sapiens or much earlier?


According to Prof Chris Stringer from Cambridge Uni/Natural History museum our Homo Sapiens ancestors managed to pillage their way through the globe taking out 14 different hominid groups.

It's likely the Denisovans and Neanderthals were sub-species of Homo-Sapiens so we killed the men and enslaved the females (sounds familiar). Whereas the Flores hobbits were wiped out.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

05 Jul 2020, 2:53 am

cyberdad wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
This chance never occurred for humans tho! Humans always had rivals, mostly among themselves; and therefore there was always a “need” for warring. Warring leads to a more patriarchal path in evolution.


Don't forget our ancestors had to also fight 14 other species of hominid for territory and space,



I thought they only co-existed with Neanderthals? Are you talking about Homo Sapiens or much earlier?


According to Prof Chris Stringer from Cambridge Uni/Natural History museum our Homo Sapiens ancestors managed to pillage their way through the globe taking out 14 different hominid groups.

It's likely the Denisovans and Neanderthals were sub-species of Homo-Sapiens so we killed the men and enslaved the females (sounds familiar). Whereas the Flores hobbits were wiped out.


Non-African populations have neanderthal genes; I wonder if these cross-species breeding were consensual.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

05 Jul 2020, 2:59 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Non-African populations have neanderthal genes; I wonder if these cross-species breeding were consensual.


Given there are no more Neanderthals or Denisovans - Probably not. Apparently the genes from both helped with early tropical hominids survive the cold, low light and high altitude.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

05 Jul 2020, 3:17 am

cyberdad wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Non-African populations have neanderthal genes; I wonder if these cross-species breeding were consensual.


Given there are no more Neanderthals or Denisovans - Probably not. Apparently the genes from both helped with early tropical hominids survive the cold, low light and high altitude.



Well, the fact that our species was always so much expansionist adds more unlikeness to a matriarchal prehistory.

Sorry Mr. Chain, but your ideal bonobo-like prehistory never existed :mrgreen:. Homo sapiens evolved as a bloody species.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

05 Jul 2020, 3:37 am

cyberdad wrote:
Chain wrote:
pre-cultural females were the so called "alphas" with a bunch of males vying for a chance to mate. As a female rose up through the ranks of females, she would build a "harem" of males with a primary male. The fittest male would become her primary choice for mating. It is a pretty simple strategy but culture has obscured these old patterns (patriarchy, blech!).

Bonobos have the closest strategy today.

This is what I refer to as "suitor stacking". She watches, then chooses the fittest male (s). All my primal sisters do this to different degrees. I find it fascinating! If they think I am in their suitor stack, they get two middle fingers from me... like come on sis, just because I care about you doesn't mean I am in the stack! :wink:


Yes this perspective is valid with bonobos and prehistoric humans. You have a innovative way of looking at behaviorial science.

It also explains simps and alphas in modern society :lol:


If I roll over and ask a woman to rub my tummy,
Am I a "Simp"? 8O



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

05 Jul 2020, 4:13 am

^ it makes you a puppy.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

05 Jul 2020, 5:04 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Well, the fact that our species was always so much expansionist adds more unlikeness to a matriarchal prehistory.

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/socie ... ties-list/



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

05 Jul 2020, 5:06 am

Pepe wrote:
If I roll over and ask a woman to rub my tummy,
Am I a "Simp"? 8O


No I was thinking more about Jordan Peterson's definition...he want to toughen us males up



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

05 Jul 2020, 8:01 am

cyberdad wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Well, the fact that our species was always so much expansionist adds more unlikeness to a matriarchal prehistory.

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/socie ... ties-list/



This article starts with the same myth “humans were matriarchal and then became patriarchal” ... jeez. The same unfounded myth with no founded science.

Just because there are very few matriarchal tribes doesn’t mean our prehistory was so; also compare those to the number of patriarchal tribes.

And just because some ancient cultures had goddesses doesn’t mean they were matriarchal; the ancient Greeks didn’t respect women like that article claims.

https://medium.com/@AmandaElis/classica ... 6b0ef7f540


Worshiping female “fertility” doesn’t mean these ancient people gave power to women; just because some ancient society built a goddess with overgrown breasts and hips doesn’t mean they put women in higher places socially - Making goddesses associated with fertility and beauty didn’t serve women well.
On the contrary, they probability restricted their role just for making babies.

The best time for women in humankind history is the modern time and hopefully more in the future; there was no matriarchal prehistory.



Chain
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 157
Location: Portland, Oregon

05 Jul 2020, 3:12 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

Read “The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory” by Cynthia Eller - you and Chain are both fallen in this old propaganda.


Falling for propaganda?

Ok...
I have been working on this theory for 15 years (if you doubt me, check out my posts from around that time.) This is my life's work. I PURPOSELY do not read books like that, they are opinion works... Size doesn't matter in mating strategies. I do not care if males are larger. It has nothing to do with anything relating to these strategies.

http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/ ... dimorphism,)%20tall%20(Rowe%201996).&text=Bonobos%20have%20black%20hair%20and%20black%20faces%20from%20birth.

Bonobos have a higher sexual size dimorphism than humans (~20% to 15%). Their mating strategy is well documented.

You have every right to believe or feel anything you want.
This is not a feminist argument but something completely different. It is a set of predictive theories about the human race and psychology. It is not left wing or right wing. It is not feminist or chauvinist.

I may be an egalitarian but I do not let that get in the way of my sciencing.

I am interested in the truth and I have a specific kind of brain that can take what seem like massively complex chaotic systems and distill them into certain theories.

I would suggest you offer your opinions in the future without saying people are falling for propaganda. I do not and will not insult your intelligence by saying that you have fallen for propaganda.



Last edited by Chain on 05 Jul 2020, 3:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Chain
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 157
Location: Portland, Oregon

05 Jul 2020, 3:21 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Sorry Mr. Chain, but your ideal bonobo-like prehistory never existed :mrgreen:. Homo sapiens evolved as a bloody species.


This is a total misunderstanding of how evolution works. I suppose we evolved from Adam's rib?

There were no bonobos or chimps with the split(s) happened. Yes we evolved as a species but we did not have language and culture until relatively recently.

If you want to believe that God created us 6,000 years ago...great! I am totally cool with that.

If you feel evolution is valid: There were pre-human forms and mating strategies that differ from the cultural ones that exist today. This code is still running to a degree in our heads.

As far as it never existing.
This is a theory. I am explaining this theory and the reason I see things the way that I do. I am less positive about its correctness than you seem to be about its incorrectness. I feel from observation that my theory is accurate. I did not approach this with certain prejudices, I see real world phenomenon and try to explain it scientifically.



Chain
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 157
Location: Portland, Oregon

05 Jul 2020, 3:36 pm

cyberdad wrote:

Don't forget our ancestors had to also fight 14 other species of hominid for territory and space,


And mated with them.

This is not matriarchy or patriarchy. These are cultural things not biological ones.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

05 Jul 2020, 4:02 pm

Chain wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Sorry Mr. Chain, but your ideal bonobo-like prehistory never existed :mrgreen:. Homo sapiens evolved as a bloody species.


This is a total misunderstanding of how evolution works. I suppose we evolved from Adam's rib?

There were no bonobos or chimps with the split(s) happened. Yes we evolved as a species but we did not have language and culture until relatively recently.

If you want to believe that God created us 6,000 years ago...great! I am totally cool with that.

If you feel evolution is valid: There were pre-human forms and mating strategies that differ from the cultural ones that exist today. This code is still running to a degree in our heads.

As far as it never existing.
This is a theory. I am explaining this theory and the reason I see things the way that I do. I am less positive about its correctness than you seem to be about its incorrectness. I feel from observation that my theory is accurate. I did not approach this with certain prejudices, I see real world phenomenon and try to explain it scientifically.



First of all, I am atheist - I do not believe in God.

Second of all, I was referring to the split between the common chimps and bonobo chimps; hence why I mentioned a common ancestor between ( ). The split between hominin and other great apes is ever much earlier - this is a proper understanding of how evolution works.

Please learn to read posts properly before making such silly pretentious assumptions; or skip me if you just don’t like what I am saying, that’s not a scientific attitude tho.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

05 Jul 2020, 4:18 pm

Chain wrote:
cyberdad wrote:

Don't forget our ancestors had to also fight 14 other species of hominid for territory and space,


And mated with them.

This is not matriarchy or patriarchy. These are cultural things not biological ones.


Cultures didn’t develop in a vacuum.

If Homo sapiens simply mated with them then why we didn’t up with hybrid species? Why the other species died out?

That only means that there was no equal number of mating between the species; no real coexistence - Homo sapiens only mated with few of the other species. One species obviously dominated the other.

https://www.sciencealert.com/did-homo-s ... her-humans

The other homo species started to disappear the moment the homo sapiens arrived to them. Hmm.

Also, let’s be bit realistic; barely 100-200 years ago humans considered other humans as inferior and enslaved them just because of difference in skin color; human history is full of treating “the other” badly; do you really believe that humans who lived between 300,000-30,000 years ago would have treated another species of homos, who certainly looked very different; in a friendly and peaceful manner?



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

05 Jul 2020, 4:59 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Also, let’s be bit realistic; barely 100-200 years ago humans considered other humans as inferior and enslaved them just because of difference in skin color; human history is full of treating “the other” badly; do you really believe that humans who lived between 300,000-30,000 years ago would have treated another species of homos, who certainly looked very different; in a friendly and peaceful manner?


Actually as recently as 5000 years ago Indo-European speakers from central Asia crossed into Europe and completely over-ran the paleolithic Europeans in matter of a few hundred years. The speed which their language and culture took over has confused historians.