Jordan at The Screen: In today's episode I discuss the wonders of beauty and sex
Stewart-Williams & Thomas, 2013, The Ape That Thought It Was a Peacock: Does Evolutionary Psychology Exaggerate Human Sex Differences?
“It is plausible to suppose, then, that as a result of the dependency of our big-brained young, humans evolved to form pair bonds and to engage in biparental care—or more precisely, that big brains, pair bonding, and biparental care coevolved.
This had important implications for our species. For one thing, it led to a reduction in the sex difference in reproductive variability (variance in the number of offspring produced by males vs. females), which in turn led to a reduction in sexual dimorphism.
…
[Seems fair enough, stuff that has already been discussed on this channel. But, this is where it gets good.]
…
Because our male ancestors were investing more and more into offspring, men evolved to be choosy about their sexual partners, at least in a long-term mating context. Men’s mate preferences in turn put women under intersexual selection, which led to the evolution of “showy” females: females with secondary sexual features such as breasts, facial neoteny, and the “hourglass” figure… If so, women’s breasts tell us something important about ourselves, namely, that we are not the kind of species in which males only ever pursue sex indiscriminately and females alone exert mate choice [MCFC vs MMC]. Breasts are evidence of male mate choice operating over many thousands of generations (Cant, 1981). The same is true of other secondary sexual features found in human females, including facial neoteny (e.g., large eyes, small noses and chins); gluteofemoral fat deposits and the hourglass figure; and lighter, smoother, less hairy skin.
…
[What made women youthful and beautiful is the power of the penis. Patriarchy made women beautiful. Essentially, women have boobs because men like boobs so sex selection pressures made women evolve boobs. The power of boobs changed human evolution. People say boobs are a gift from god but, they’re not. They’re a gift from the patriarchy.]
…
The lesson that all these features teach us is this: If men in our evolutionary past did not invest in offspring, they would not have evolved strict mate preferences and thus women would be as drab as peahens. The fact that women are not as drab as peahens suggests a long history of male mate choice, which in turn suggests a long history of pair bonding and high male parental investment.
Men becoming dads and playing a role in their child’s life made women beautiful! Last video I spoke about how the family home liberated women from expensive and dangerous childbirth. Now I’m saying the family home made women beautiful. I love evolutionary psychology.
And to think, these Neo-Marxists, these post-Modernists, they want to throw this away! They want to throw beauty away because men made it!
The feminist cycle, it never ends, only gets worse:
* Rudman and Goodwin, 2004 – Gender Differences in Automatic In-Group Bias: Why Do Women Like Women More Than Men Like Men? – They found:
“[M]en who liked sex and engaged in sexual activity would automatically favour women over men. Thus, to the extent that men are sexually experienced, their greater interest in and liking for sex may promote automatic preference for the out-group (women). In addition, we found that women who implicitly liked sex tended to prefer men on the gender attitude IAT, although this linkage was not moderated by their sexual experience. Finally, using self-reports, both women and men high on sexual experience expressed greater liking for the opposite gender. Although the data suggest differences in the correlates of implicit and explicit gender attitudes, they cohere in one important respect. Taken together, they strongly suggest that gender attitudes have a sexual component”.
(i h8 men > i will be ugly to spite men > men won’t have sex with me > i h8 men)
(ad-lib and lol the rest)
[Editor’s Note: I want to include this full quote, it’s not featured in the video in its entirety but I want you all to enjoy it.]
“To take a more specific example, the fact that adult human females have permanently enlarged breasts is plausibly a consequence of male choice. Contrary to popular opinion, enlarged mammary glands appear not to be necessary for milk delivery. The vast majority of mammals deliver milk without them, and there is little correlation between the size of a woman’s breasts and her capacity to produce milk (Miller, 2000). What, then, are breasts for? A rather obvious clue can be found in the fact that most men find youthful-looking breasts sexually attractive. This has led to the suggestion that the primary evolutionary function of breasts relates to mate choice (Dixson, Grimshaw, Linklater, & Dixson, 2011). The most widely accepted suggestion is that they are honest signals of good genes, youthfulness, and nutritional status (Jasienska, Ziomkiewicz, Ellison, Lipson, & Thune, 2004; Marlowe, 1998; Singh, 1995; for an alternative hypothesis, see Low, Alexander, & Noonan, 1987). If so, women’s breasts tell us something important about ourselves, namely, that we are not the kind of species in which males only ever pursue sex indiscriminately and females alone exert mate choice. Breasts are evidence of male mate choice operating over many thousands of generations (Cant, 1981). The same is true of other secondary sexual features found in human females, including facial neoteny (e.g., large eyes, small noses and chins); gluteofemoral fat deposits and the hourglass figure; and lighter, smoother, less hairy skin.
The lesson that all these features teach us is this: If men in our evolutionary past did not invest in offspring, they would not have evolved strict mate preferences and thus women would be as drab as peahens. The fact that women are not as drab as peahens suggests a long history of male mate choice, which in turn suggests a long history of pair bonding and high male parental investment.”
links/script:
http://thescreen.me/2017/05/24/femini...
“It is plausible to suppose, then, that as a result of the dependency of our big-brained young, humans evolved to form pair bonds and to engage in biparental care—or more precisely, that big brains, pair bonding, and biparental care coevolved.
This had important implications for our species. For one thing, it led to a reduction in the sex difference in reproductive variability (variance in the number of offspring produced by males vs. females), which in turn led to a reduction in sexual dimorphism.
…
[Seems fair enough, stuff that has already been discussed on this channel. But, this is where it gets good.]
…
Because our male ancestors were investing more and more into offspring, men evolved to be choosy about their sexual partners, at least in a long-term mating context. Men’s mate preferences in turn put women under intersexual selection, which led to the evolution of “showy” females: females with secondary sexual features such as breasts, facial neoteny, and the “hourglass” figure… If so, women’s breasts tell us something important about ourselves, namely, that we are not the kind of species in which males only ever pursue sex indiscriminately and females alone exert mate choice [MCFC vs MMC]. Breasts are evidence of male mate choice operating over many thousands of generations (Cant, 1981). The same is true of other secondary sexual features found in human females, including facial neoteny (e.g., large eyes, small noses and chins); gluteofemoral fat deposits and the hourglass figure; and lighter, smoother, less hairy skin.
…
[What made women youthful and beautiful is the power of the penis. Patriarchy made women beautiful. Essentially, women have boobs because men like boobs so sex selection pressures made women evolve boobs. The power of boobs changed human evolution. People say boobs are a gift from god but, they’re not. They’re a gift from the patriarchy.]
…
The lesson that all these features teach us is this: If men in our evolutionary past did not invest in offspring, they would not have evolved strict mate preferences and thus women would be as drab as peahens. The fact that women are not as drab as peahens suggests a long history of male mate choice, which in turn suggests a long history of pair bonding and high male parental investment.
Men becoming dads and playing a role in their child’s life made women beautiful! Last video I spoke about how the family home liberated women from expensive and dangerous childbirth. Now I’m saying the family home made women beautiful. I love evolutionary psychology.
And to think, these Neo-Marxists, these post-Modernists, they want to throw this away! They want to throw beauty away because men made it!
The feminist cycle, it never ends, only gets worse:
- “I hate men” – feminists (not WRAs) hate men, they are misandrists.
- “I will be ugly to spite men” – they wish to disregard traditional standards of beauty because they are oppressive and patriarchal, so they have introduced “F Your Beauty Standards” and “Body Positivity” and all that crap. Being fat and disgusting (Tess Holliday) is what you wanna strive for. Give yourself an asymmetrical DIY haircut, bleach it then dye it some patchy neon colour. Grow your body hair because razors are oppressive. They buy make-up from indie markets that are 50% dirt and 50% goat shit then completely fail to apply it correctly. That kind of shit.
- “I don’t want sex with men and men won’t have sex with me” – For a start, there is no way any sane guy will stick his dick in that. Sure, there’s pathetic loser cucks out there who will, these “allies” as they call themselves but, they’re not men, not really. And so, the lack of sex worsens their views of the opposite sex because sexual experience actually improves gender relations*. People with greater sexual experience foster more favourable views of the opposite sex. Sex makes you a more likeable person, it calms your mind, improves your mood. Well, these bint feminists aren’t getting any, which is why they are such worked up harridans.
- “I hate men” – The cycle has come full circle, the hate and anger from lack of sex fuels their already prevalent misandry, perpetuating their feminist beliefs. It’s really quite fascinating to watch. That’s why they have such a hatred for male sexuality, because they don’t get any!
* Rudman and Goodwin, 2004 – Gender Differences in Automatic In-Group Bias: Why Do Women Like Women More Than Men Like Men? – They found:
“[M]en who liked sex and engaged in sexual activity would automatically favour women over men. Thus, to the extent that men are sexually experienced, their greater interest in and liking for sex may promote automatic preference for the out-group (women). In addition, we found that women who implicitly liked sex tended to prefer men on the gender attitude IAT, although this linkage was not moderated by their sexual experience. Finally, using self-reports, both women and men high on sexual experience expressed greater liking for the opposite gender. Although the data suggest differences in the correlates of implicit and explicit gender attitudes, they cohere in one important respect. Taken together, they strongly suggest that gender attitudes have a sexual component”.
(i h8 men > i will be ugly to spite men > men won’t have sex with me > i h8 men)
(ad-lib and lol the rest)
[Editor’s Note: I want to include this full quote, it’s not featured in the video in its entirety but I want you all to enjoy it.]
“To take a more specific example, the fact that adult human females have permanently enlarged breasts is plausibly a consequence of male choice. Contrary to popular opinion, enlarged mammary glands appear not to be necessary for milk delivery. The vast majority of mammals deliver milk without them, and there is little correlation between the size of a woman’s breasts and her capacity to produce milk (Miller, 2000). What, then, are breasts for? A rather obvious clue can be found in the fact that most men find youthful-looking breasts sexually attractive. This has led to the suggestion that the primary evolutionary function of breasts relates to mate choice (Dixson, Grimshaw, Linklater, & Dixson, 2011). The most widely accepted suggestion is that they are honest signals of good genes, youthfulness, and nutritional status (Jasienska, Ziomkiewicz, Ellison, Lipson, & Thune, 2004; Marlowe, 1998; Singh, 1995; for an alternative hypothesis, see Low, Alexander, & Noonan, 1987). If so, women’s breasts tell us something important about ourselves, namely, that we are not the kind of species in which males only ever pursue sex indiscriminately and females alone exert mate choice. Breasts are evidence of male mate choice operating over many thousands of generations (Cant, 1981). The same is true of other secondary sexual features found in human females, including facial neoteny (e.g., large eyes, small noses and chins); gluteofemoral fat deposits and the hourglass figure; and lighter, smoother, less hairy skin.
The lesson that all these features teach us is this: If men in our evolutionary past did not invest in offspring, they would not have evolved strict mate preferences and thus women would be as drab as peahens. The fact that women are not as drab as peahens suggests a long history of male mate choice, which in turn suggests a long history of pair bonding and high male parental investment.”
links/script:
http://thescreen.me/2017/05/24/femini...
No comments:
Post a Comment