(January 30, 2018 at 12:05 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(January 30, 2018 at 11:59 am)alpha male Wrote: OK, what's the advantage in women being on average smaller and weaker than men?

Estrogen and testosterone are the sex hormones, yes? Estrogen may not give us the girth of males, but it lets us have babies. Men have testosterone so they are big and can hunt/provide. Women have estrogen so that they are able to develop life inside of them.

Are you trying to make a criticism of evolution with this women are weak so men can dominate them thing or is that something you believe?

Are you trying to trigger feminists? Women can hunt and provide for themselves. Being pregnant and having big boobies won't stop strong independent women from sprinting and tackling a gazelle. We need to stop the discrimination.

(January 30, 2018 at 1:36 pm)Shell B Wrote: One aspect of it not being enough to explain the whole of it doesn't make your absurd sexual dominance theory correct. That would have to mean that weaker women were selected by men, but that women started off the same size as men.

Correct, although this could have happened well before humans.

Quote:Over time, the women who were weaker dominated the gene pool. That would have to be how it panned out, which doesn't make sense, given that, from an evolutionary standpoint, fortune favors stronger women who can reproduce well.

And yet, women are weaker than men, when strength in women would otherwise be an advantage to the species.

Quote:The losers don't get an alternative strategy. The winners knock up the woman. The losers can't knock up the women because the winners have. Like in other species, the winner protects his mate from rapey losers. In the end, you have an obvious reason for men being bigger. It's the same with other species.

Now you're ignoring the fact that females are indeed raped, and that sometimes results in pregnancy. It's amazing the blinders you guys put on regarding this.

Note also it's not necessarily just size. In the Aziz thread, some women argued that many women tend to freeze up in uncomfortable sexual situations rather than assertively trying to get out of the situation. They were assuming this is a social construct, but it makes a lot of sense as an evolutionary adaptation.

Quote:Bless your heart. I see it as an *attempt* to discredit evolutionary theory. I didn't say it was a discredit. Evolution is true. Your hypothesis is not a fact. It's not even a hypothesis really, because that would require an educated guess.

It's not even an *attempt* to discredit evolutionary theory.

(January 30, 2018 at 1:57 pm)SaStrike Wrote:

(January 30, 2018 at 12:05 pm)Shell B Wrote: Estrogen and testosterone are the sex hormones, yes? Estrogen may not give us the girth of males, but it lets us have babies. Men have testosterone so they are big and can hunt/provide. Women have estrogen so that they are able to develop life inside of them.

Are you trying to make a criticism of evolution with this women are weak so men can dominate them thing or is that something you believe?

Are you trying to trigger feminists? Women can hunt and provide for themselves. Being pregnant and having big boobies won't stop strong independent women from sprinting and tackling a gazelle. We need to stop the discrimination.

We may be able to, but we don't have an evolutionary advantage there. Men do. For the record, just having boobies at all is enough to deter me from tackling a gazelle.

Firstly, women aren't really "weaker" or " smaller"on average than men as anything other than a snapshit in a time or place..but they are ever so slightly smaller recently and particularly in our time and place...and so require less in the way of food and space.  OFC, being small, it helps to have a biggun around to do the nasty shit..which is why women sexually selected we peen swingers for size and violence, insomuch as it would be possible. That;s laying aside all that super sweet rape, ofc. Then there's the effect of conflict on genetics..wherein a species that has spent considerable time swinging clubs at each other is bound to reflect the average of who -comes home- from war..moreso than who goes off to it.

If you wanted to get all general about it, women are efficient and men are bred to be expendable, if expensive.  Starvation constrained our size and conflict set selective metrics.

You're welcome...and was this question an example of conservative self control?

(January 30, 2018 at 12:57 pm)Divinity Wrote:

(January 30, 2018 at 12:41 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: So if you happened to be raised and nutured in a conservative environment, you feel like you wouldn't be a conservative? Why, because you have superior genetics?

Oh please, I was raised in a conservative environment, by a father who felt that women shouldn't have the right to vote or work and who thought that the rich were the rightful rulers of the world.   So, I know I wouldn't be a conservative.  Because I'm not.

So basically you think you didn't end up a conservative because you are genetically superior. Although I would question the inborn empathy level of someone who just called a bunch of people who mostly believe what they do because of social conditioning, lesser humans.

And yet these "self-controlling" conservatives are happy to release state secrets and classified information in order to try and deflect attention from a president who is both treasonous and a clear and present danger to the US.

Way to prove your superior control, guys!

Once again Beta demonstrates his ignorance of evolutionary theory. Remember when he fucked up on the evolution of the eye.

1. Small size can be an advantage as it's less resource heavy . Strength and size  has fuck all to do with fitness.

2. Estrogen is not  disadvantage nor a weakness . Go read the evolution of sex fuckwit. 

3. The rape theory is pseudoscience. Males tend to protect their mates from other males who would rape them . And countless species the female is the larger stronger or more socially dominant  . Hyenas, Lions,Lemurs,Wild Dogs, Mantis , Wasps ,Ants ,Spiders ,Centipedes, 

Guess which ones the female 

4. Rape is not the default position for animals countless animals do courtship not rape 

5. Fuck off saying your not judging Beta this line of reasoning is agenda driven . 

6. Males are not hardwired to be dominant sexually 

7. Once again tries to push evolution into normative ethics and fails (yup no agenda there)

8. Lastly male size is about competing with other males . Not raping females.

9. Thinks fucking size goes hand and hand with dominance.

To be fair, we are talking about human evolution lol. Showing a picture of spiders where the female is bigger isn't going to do anything to the discussion where human females are smaller.

(January 30, 2018 at 5:17 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: To be fair, we are talking about human evolution lol. Showing a picture of spiders where the female is bigger isn't going to do anything to the discussion where human females are smaller.

I'm simply pointing out that it's not always the male who's bigger . And also males are not always dominant . So Beta's silly idea of defining in universal term of female and males is wrong .

For the record, gazelle aren't sprinted to death.  They're run out marathon style.  Women have a clear advantage there. Good thing we had the sense to learn to throw bricks at them. Saves alot of sweating.