Monogamy May Be Even More Difficult For Women Than it Is For Men

I love when sherdog pulls anthropology and psychology out of their ass.
 
Greoric said:
This is fundamentally a biology topic, but close enough for a sherdogger I suppose.
Click to expand...
No, it’s anthropology and psychology. Most of it is about the history of human sexuality which is an anthropological subject. You might argue that anthropology is a form of biology, but take that up somewhere else.
 
tonni said:
Most of it is about the history of human sexuality which is an anthropological subject. You might argue that anthropology is a form of biology, but take that up somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Sexuality... Sex… Reproduction and the means and ends its carried out is only understood through a lens of evolution.... That's biology.
 
Greoric said:
Sexuality... Sex… Reproduction and the means and ends its carried out is only understood through a lens of evolution.... That's biology.
Click to expand...
It’s the scientific discipline of human biology which is a subset of biological anthropology. Take it up with the scientific establishment.

Once you start talking about the behavior of humans, evolutionary or otherwise, from a non-psychology point of view, you’re venturing into anthropology.
 
Has there ever been a time when they weren’t hoes?
 
The problem is also that a lot of men are very bad in bed and stupid.
 
Greoric said:
Among the great apes, promiscuity is corollary to male testicle size, where Lowland Silverbacks have mincy little balls, and Chimpanzees are basically walking balls with brains. Humans are somewhere in the middle.
Click to expand...

For the record, I'm liking this post because the part about chimps made me laugh, not because I can cosign the facts (other than the fact that chimps have big balls).
 
tonni said:
It’s the scientific discipline of human biology which is a subset of biological anthropology. Take it up with the scientific establishment.

Once you start talking about the behavior of humans, evolutionary or otherwise, from a non-psychology point of view, you’re venturing into anthropology.
Click to expand...

Dude.... biology, all life forms (+ or - viruses) and their evolution are foundational to anything that we build from to produce anthropology. No biology, no life forms, no primates, no humans, no societies, no anthro… get it?
 
Greoric said:
Dude.... biology, all life forms (+ or - viruses) and their evolution are foundational to anything that we build from to produce anthropology. No biology, no life forms, no primates, no humans, no societies, no anthro… get it?
Click to expand...
You should write a letter to every scientific institution you can find. Make sure it’s classic Greoric, lengthy and nitpicky and entirely unpleasant to read.
 
octopus said:
Good post



This is where he lost me as well... seemed like a college bang bro cuck fantasy worked its way in... I used to work on a farm(wake up when the sun comes up, go to sleep when the sun goes down type of lifestyle and there's no way primitive humans were staying up late at night to sneak around and fucc, I think gangbang sperm wars would probably be more likely if we want to run with that theory which could potentially explain why we like to watch porn and why others are into cuckolding.... on iliza eschlinger's most recent jre podcast she used some chick/bro science where she said something along the lines of, turning your back on a women meant you wanted her to die because you were refusing to share knowledge with her. First time she ever made me laugh.
Click to expand...

1) Esrly humans in thsoe times worked less than your sun up to sundown.

2) in tribal settings it did happen.

3) its called sperm competition. Its a fact.
Phr3121 said:
I would question your source. Pretty much the female of any species is looking for a male that will support raising the offspring and provide. Sex is not an issue, only for procreation. The male of most species is looking to have sex as often as possible and increase the chance of its lineage to survive. That is why men are aroused visually and females are not. Men need to be 'turned on' to have an erection for the process to work. Females don't need that and are not built like that. Their priority is focused on the offspring.
Click to expand...

Science man.
 
Trotsky said:
For the record, I'm liking this post because the part about chimps made me laugh, not because I can cosign the facts (other than the fact that chimps have big balls).
Click to expand...

Glad you brought this back. The relationship being that the primate males with the larger pair of balls were in the company of more promiscuous females. Larger* balls = more sperm production = more chance your guy wins the race. It's not quite a provisional truth, but its the best we have to go on.
 
tonni said:
You should write a letter to every scientific institution you can find. Make sure it’s classic Greoric, lengthy and nitpicky and entirely unpleasant to read.
Click to expand...

Why would I write something a fucking HS science teacher understands? Anyway, I appreciate your concession that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
 
Greoric said:
No not sure. Just looking to spark the debate. :D
Click to expand...

Ha! I respect your candor.

Hmm, I was reading a passage that addresses what we are talking about,

The proposition was one of narrow facts as presented by a story likely dredged up by the media, I suggested that there is a larger narrative and reality in the world of our philosophical views of the greater reality.

Poster A wants to talk about his favorite tree.

Poster B wants to discuss the forest.

When in fact, what should be the main idea, is that even in this forest there is a greater, frightening biome of foliage that shapes our thoughts.

Most of the articles we are inundated with are poor facsimiles of the truth hacked, slashed, cut, and at last pruned for public exposure.

"His" might be, it might not, and I do not particularly care. My care is considering the carved lumber that we are being delivered as a fir tree.




Fascinating!



Or take this explanation when it comes to understanding politics:


"Political science likes facts because it is thought possible to agree on facts as opposed to values, and political philosophy provides values or norms because it seeks what is best."

Educational - what can be agreed on empirically, philosophical - what can be gleaned from the larger system and abstractions.

As well, in human thinking an individual is better at spotting concrete patterns, or abstract principles, depending on how the individual's mind works, but to understand the WHOLE we need both and so much more!

Which is why people are difficult to predict, so many people are so sure of how people work, and yet most are committed to an infinitesimal, single taste of an endless buffet of human experiences.

@Bald1 As I think he might appreciate this discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,238,484
Messages
55,562,841
Members
174,821
Latest member
celticfrost

Share this page

Back
Top