Dare you to study its prevalence between populations.
The researchers conclude that these results suggest that the human-specific ARHGAP11B gene may have caused neocortex expansion in the course of human evolution.
Dare you to study its prevalence between populations.
The researchers conclude that these results suggest that the human-specific ARHGAP11B gene may have caused neocortex expansion in the course of human evolution.
I’ll bang this drum around both types of sexist controlling pig until I die.
Nobody’s gender role is to oppress anybody else, those people are either insecure and projecting (cough certain religions) or straight up predators. Men and women negotiate and if a man in a couple wants to cook, that’s literally none of my business.
I don’t get the American busybodies judging a marriage they aren’t in – it works, for them, so who cares?
In a couple, they negotiate. That’s it. Don’t like it? Leave. This isn’t hard. It’s the purpose of courtship. MGTOW, MRAs, SJWs make it sound hard because they’re all scared of “getting hurt”. Okay, don’t date. That’s okay. If you shouldn’t be dating, stop.
There is no ‘boss’. It isn’t work. It isn’t a master-slave situation (at least… outside of the bedroom).
Why don’t more Americans get this? Did sitcoms brainwash you that hard? No spouse is on top. They are ONE. Made one flesh. They are a unit. Don’t misquote the Bible at me.
Demur on the topic of other people’s personal lives. I’ve seen ostensibly mens blog after mens forum turn into a huge gossipfest. Huuuuge. Men gossip way more than women now. It’s ugly. It’s also a sin but w/e.
Anybody trying to claim (including virtue signalling of how Their Marriage would be so magically superior) that one Group is superior, by existing, is appealing to Communism. Sorry. Marxists aren’t superior. It’s false consciousness to claim otherwise. This is communistic thinking in the extreme, dissolving your identity into the group (ego death but bad – groupthink, hivemind, the mob) and thereby being proven Worthy and magically Superior, 5eva. You are born and what that is, isn’t an accomplishment. Men aren’t superior. Women aren’t superior. It’s apples and oranges. Nobody is superior. The concept doesn’t apply to human beings, we’re individuals (or organisms). The Gender War construct is Anti-Natal psyops from Cultural Marxism, they openly admitted they wanted to destroy the nuclear family. Considering a man and woman are required, willing it, they triangulated the genders and their willingness to cooperate with their own race (in every race). The entire world is not a tribe, there is no Best Ever Man and Best Ever Woman in the Whole World. Even if there were, they’re still gonna die. Stoicism explained this thousands of years ago. It’s futile, an ego trip. Say you reached this Peak. So what? Or more scary, now what? How lonely would that be? Nietzsche’s concept of Ubermensch is an abstraction, it isn’t an instruction manual. Americans misunderstand a 19th century philosophy book as 20th century, direct self-help (which is Freudian in origin). He was heavily, heavily sarcastic in his writings, a fact many 7/8th grade reading level Americans cannot perceive, due to the age and translation of the text.
At the fine-grained level, teasing and a kind of snorting sarcasm are among Nietzsche’s most common modes of expression. His writing is riddled with jokes and snarky comments. Unfortunately for readers, understanding the humor — or indeed recognizing when he’s having a laugh — often requires a pretty good familiarity with the history of philosophy, intellectual history, and arts in Europe up to his time. Nietzsche trained as a philologist, or what we would now call a “classicist,” and he assumes his reader is familiar with his classical references….
He was mocking the very guys who follow him dumbly, like Marx.
Poe’s law applies to old text too.
‘It is not a lack of love, but a lack of friendship that makes unhappy marriages.’
‘That which does not kill us makes us stronger.’
‘There are two different types of people in the world, those who want to know, and those who want to believe.’
‘Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.’
‘I was in darkness, but I took three steps and found myself in paradise. The first step was a good thought, the second, a good word; and the third, a good deed.’
true joke joke true true, respectively
The second is very morbid because have you seen some injuries men returning from battle had back then? Lame, crippled, half their face missing.
The last is the Law of Attraction, if you wanna go there. Basic stoic thought control.
‘And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.’
A hopeful skeptic.
‘You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.’
Oh but that one isn’t edgy enough, bro!
‘Enjoy life. This is not a dress rehearsal.’
Don’t die for gains in the gym.
‘To predict the behavior of ordinary people in advance, you only have to assume that they will always try to escape a disagreeable situation with the smallest possible expenditure of intelligence.’
Normies but Victorian. Cuz we’re so smart, with our internet access. Our ancestors didn’t understand shit, man. Where is our Shakespeare? We don’t have one. Carry on.
Relative to the gender role thing:
‘Nobody is more inferior than those who insist on being equal.’
‘No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.’ Don’t be a lemming, especially chasing after something that can never be real. It seems like a secular attempt at theosis.
I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule — and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness: they fear their own slave soul and shroud it in a royal cloak (in the end, they still become the slaves of their followers, their fame, etc.)
Oh, the irony.
Anyone who refutes the connection (caused by low genetic load) is coping.
It’s a K-selection process.
The difference is huge in both sexes, just a few points above would be major.
10+? Huge sexual selection pressure for both sexes.
Suddenly the “muh minority wage gap” complaints take on a new light, eh?
Also fraternal twins, one girl and one boy, they swap DNA.
In any event, the results of this study on 10-15 year old girls showed that 13.6% of the girls tested positive for male microchimerism, which is more or less inline with the previously mentioned study of adult women who’d either only had daughters or never been pregnant, with rates of about 8% and 10% respectively. This also almost exactly lined up with another study on prepubescent girls, with about 14% testing positive for male microchimerism in that study.
As other studies have also shown, the 2015 study researchers also noted that girls who had older brothers were more likely to test positive for male microchimerism, with the more older brothers, the more likely to test positive. They also found girls whose mothers had blood transfusions during pregnancy were more likely to test positive as well.
exactly, it is in blood, especially placental blood
but we can’t do microchimerism studies without ALSO studying men, like do men carry maternal cells? Then it cannot be sexual.
The leading hypotheses is that these are probably coming from things like cases of a vanished and unobserved male twin or, more likely in most cases, a woman, including the mothers of these girls, having been previously pregnant with a boy and they simply didn’t know it. It turns out, depending on what study you want to go with, between 1/3 and just under 1/2 of all human pregnancies result in a miscarriage, with a decent percentage of these happening without the woman actually knowing she was briefly pregnant. Further, a large percentage of the rest of these miscarriages happen before the sex of the baby is known.
Twins can be semi-identical so biology is weird.
Study virgins, ah, but if they found microchimerism ((they’d)) still claim they were lying? Nuns? Maternal cells in gay guys?
It’s possible family cells don’t activate until later, gene expression is like that.
They should study semen for evidence of race mixing. I bet they’d find it. Hey, if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear, right?
Imagine demanding a guy take a cuck test before marrying your daughter.
I long for the day. That’s real power to the Patriarchy, literally testing all your daughter’s suitors.
“when talking the “every partner” narrative, this can conclusively be shown to be false with the known data given that if that were true, virtually every heterosexual woman should test positive for male microchimerism. This is not the case.”
negative evidence, the projecting narcs don’t care though, they want an excuse for their hatred
Test lesbians. Ah, but they don’t want the truth, so they won’t test men either. They have confirmation bias.
But women shed DNA in their vagina. Those are like skin cells, remember. And if STDs can get up the male urethra (and they can), it could happen. Test some weeb in Thailand for Asian DNA in his semen, it’d be funny.
Taking “I think I’m turning Japanese” to the new height of irony.
God, imagine if they found it. Those are the studies we really need.
“the vagina is an incredibly inhospitable place to try to establish a cell line in the first place, including being relatively rapidly self cleaning and good at getting rid of such offending cells.”
self-cleaning = constantly shedding
so it’s more probable that more than 10% of slutty men have female DNA
you can’t just look at one sex for human DNA, you must study both
it reminds me of divorce studies that don’t look at male risk factors, you need a good MO
then if men are strangely clear, despite growing in a woman for 9 months, at least biology would know that!
“But, of course, sperm don’t replicate themselves and only last at most a week or so. So, no. Just no.”
dead fragments – find them in autopsies to prove it? or disprove with lack thereof?
Male Microchimerism in the Human Female Brain
Microchimerism of fetal as well as maternal origin has recently been reported in the mouse brain.
“After giving birth, about 50–75% of women carry fetal immune cell lines. Maternal immune cells are also found in the offspring yielding in maternal→fetal microchimerism, though this phenomenon is about half as frequent as the former.”
So men ALSO carry their mother’s cells … that isn’t impressive, then but the bad faith guys ignore it.
Perfectly innocent explanation. I don’t mind admitting I was wrong, hadn’t looked into it but I know a lot of twins, some virgins. Tests must be possible, especially in animal models.
Source Maternal microchimerism in healthy adults in lymphocytes, monocyte/macrophages and NK cells
“Maternal Mc has recently been found in the peripheral blood of healthy adults.”
okay, study just men?
like a study of just men for maternal or non-maternal female DNA?
that’s the simplest methodology since men can’t make babies! it would rule out pregnancy entirely!
could lead to a homosexuality test – microchimerism with non-related men?
Sperm couldn’t burrow into the uterus though because women shed it every month or less. That would be impossible, unless she got pregnant before the next period but then the immune system would’ve cleared the dead cells, that last a few days up to a week.
Because vaccine is such a loaded word.
Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017-2018 influenza season
“Receiving influenza vaccination may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a phenomenon known as virus interference…
It was planned.
Examining virus interference by specific respiratory viruses showed mixed results. Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus.”
Sue the doctors who pushed the “jab”, they get paid per person.
As I warned Anonymous Conservative when ebola was in the news, r-types love to get in touch during times of epidemic and express a sudden chummy desire to “catch up”. Narcissistic people are spiteful, so I’d heavily recommend avoiding contact with people you haven’t seen in a while.
They enjoy the thrill of power at weakening someone’s body.
Like sociopaths talk people into suicide, it’s legal murder.
Chris Reiber, and her colleagues (2010) found evidence for an increased social drive in young adults who have the flu during the asymptomatic early stages of the illness. In short, it looks like people who have the flu but who don’t yet know it are more likely to seek out social opportunities (such as attending parties) compared with others who are without the flu virus in their system. Think about that.
People with low disgust e.g. sluts in general, especially gay guys are also a risk and do exhibit this oddity of r-psychology.
In light of all this, it may be worth considering if the coronavirus, like the common flu, may actually have some proximate mechanisms by which it increases human sociality in an evolved (and obviously unconscious) effort to facilitate its own replication. Remember, from a Darwinian perspective, this is how natural selection rolls.
Why unconscious? Narcissists hate normal, happy people. Add healthy to that list when they’re not.
Pandemics tend to wipe out the sluts of both sexes e.g. plague in Florence because they’re happy vectors of it but their microbiome is already overwhelmed with disease so they can’t fend it off as well as normal hosts.
obvious study is obvious
even in male mice, the estrogen that gives them fat also has a protective effect
stop acting like estrogen is a poison when it actually protects your body and makes your brain stress-resistant
Although the prevalence of obesity is higher among women than men, they are somewhat protected from the associated cardiometabolic consequences.
It’s easier to get a higher % when you already have a higher %. There are some of the hottest women alive under the carb loading fatties, sadly. Their natural curves predispose them to obesity.
Bring back keto!
The increase in cardiovascular disease risk seen after the menopause suggests a role for estrogens. There is also growing evidence for the importance of estrogen on body fat and metabolism in males. We hypothesized that that estrogen administration would ameliorate the adverse effects of obesity on metabolic parameters in males.
Having high T, lower E in a man can make fat more stubborn, the E cannot signal properly to clear it.
Thus, DIO induces sex-specific changes in glucose–insulin homeostasis, which are ameliorated in males treated with estrogen, highlighting the importance of sex steroids in metabolism. Given that altered peripheral glucocorticoid metabolism has been observed in rodent and human obesity, our results also suggest that sexually dimorphic expression and activity of glucocorticoid metabolizing enzymes may have a role in the differential metabolic responses to obesity in males and females.
So fatter women are healthier than fatter men. This makes sense because of baby weight. Women can lose it breastfeeding, that’s why we get it.
Plus we are naturally fatter. To grow the baby in the first place.
Obese for men is average for women.
Estrogens play a fundamental role in the physiology of the reproductive, cardiovascular, skeletal, and central nervous systems. In this report, we review the literature in both rodents and humans on the role of estrogens and their receptors in the control of energy homeostasis and glucose metabolism in health and metabolic diseases. Estrogen actions in hypothalamic nuclei differentially control food intake, energy expenditure, and white adipose tissue distribution.
brain stuff = bitch tits
fat boys could be ruined for life, the developmental windows have closed
they may respond like girls medically, forever
Estrogen actions in skeletal muscle, liver, adipose tissue, and immune cells are involved in insulin sensitivity as well as prevention of lipid accumulation and inflammation. Estrogen actions in pancreatic islet β-cells also regulate insulin secretion, nutrient homeostasis, and survival. Estrogen deficiency promotes metabolic dysfunction predisposing to obesity, the metabolic syndrome, and type 2 diabetes. We also discuss the effect of selective estrogen receptor modulators on metabolic disorders.
I hope the fat acceptance lot don’t find this.
But not all fat is bad, especially evolved fat on women.
It makes WOMEN healthier, but never men. Classic sex differences. Women have curves.
Adipose tissue is an organ with active endocrine function involved in the regulation of energy balance and glucose homeostasis via multiple metabolic signaling pathways targeting the brain, liver, skeletal muscle, pancreas, and other organs. There is increasing evidence demonstrating that the female sex hormone, estrogen, regulates adipose development and improves systemic glucose homeostasis in both males and females. The underlying mechanism linking estrogenic regulation in adipose tissue and systemic glucose metabolism has not been fully elucidated, but is thought to include interactions of estrogen receptor signaling events involving lipolytic and/or lipogenic enzyme activity, free fatty acid metabolism, and adipocytokine production. Thus, understanding the effects of estrogen replacement on adipose tissue biology and metabolism is important in determining the risk of developing obesity-related metabolic disorders in patients undergoing treatment for sex hormone deficiency. In this report, we review literature regarding the role of estrogens and their corresponding receptors in the control of adipose metabolism and glucose homeostasis in both rodents and humans. We also discuss the effects of selective estrogen receptor modulators on glucose metabolism.
Fat is a more active organ in women.
Men taking T can have heart risks and metabolic issues, regardless of weight.
The data suggest that estrogen use in American Indian postmenopausal women may relate to deterioration of glucose tolerance. Longer duration of estrogen use among current users may relate to an increased risk of type 2 diabetes.
wouldn’t the pill do the same? is that why young women are obese with diabetes now?
The normal range of estrogen varies depending upon the patient’s age. Typically a women aged 20 to 29 will have an average level of 149 pg/ml (pictograms per milliliter). A female aged 30 to 39 will average a level of 210 pg/ml. And those over 40 but not in menopause will have an average level of 152 pg/ml. These average levels can vary day to day depending on each female’s menstrual cycle.
Yes, female estrogen peaks in the 30s.
The pedophiles like to try and bury that blood test fact by claiming nonsense about teens.
Stress also can contribute to a high estrogen level.
⭐This is a verified and trusted source
Endocrine Reviews:The Complex Role of Estrogens in Inflammation: Rainer H. Straub: (2007)
.According to a 2016 study in the Macedonian Journal of Medical Science, HRT could help treat insulin resistance due to low estrogen levels, although more research is needed before HRT can be said to effectively treat insulin resistance in women with low estrogen levels 13⭐
⭐This is a verified and trusted source
.are they suggesting fat people need more estrogen?
Signs of Insulin Resistance
According to Diabetes.co.uk, the signs of insulin resistance can include excessive fatigue, hunger, difficulty concentrating and weight gain
. Low estrogen levels may be associated with insulin resistance, which is also more likely to occur if you have gained excess weight or tend to carry fat in the belly area .
Diabetes.co.uk also states that insulin resistance can be improved by doing things like eating less carbohydrates, reducing calories, getting more exercise, reducing stress or even having weight loss surgery 13⭐
symptom is hunger, treatment is eating less
WTF women need to know this, we’re not actually hungry
women are told when we’re hungry to eat or we’ll pass out
Let’s actually read this thing:
Physical attractiveness and its relation to the theory of sexual selection deserve renewed attention from cultural and biological anthropologists. This paper focuses on an anomaly associated with
physical attractiveness-in our species, in contrast to many others, males seem to be more concerned than females with the attractiveness of potential sexual partners, perhaps because humans show far more age-related variance in female than in male fecundity. The resulting selection for male attraction to markers
of female youth may lead incidentally to attraction to females displaying age-related cues in an exaggerated form.
sounds like a justification for pedophilia waiting to happen, men actually desire sexual maturity first
men also like averages better than mutants
This paper reports cross-cultural evidence that males in five populations (Brazilians, U.S. Americans, Russians, Ache, and Hiwi)
no Europe in this study, so worthless, two nations minimum are mongrelised
show an attraction to females with neotenous facial proportions (a combination of large eyes, small noses, and full lips) even after female age is controlled for. Two further studies show that female models have neotenous cephalofacial proportions relative to U.S.
Anorexia does that, called a bobblehead.
Undergraduates and that drawings of faces artificially transformed to make them more or less neotenous are perceived as correspondingly more or less attractive. These results suggest several further lines of investigation, including the relationship between facial and bodily cues
biology looks at WHR already
and the consequences of attraction to neoteny for morphological evolution.
Problem 1 America is not a country with a genetic history, they aren’t even homogeneous.
Problem 2 I had to correct numerous spelling errors in the abstract alone, so paper is trash.
Feminine face traits are already neotonous, Marquardt (pictured) measured this with computer models.
That’s the most feminine female face possible.
Who cares what Brazil thinks?
The theory of sexual selection has advanced so far in recent years that it may be time for renewed attention to the relationship between sexual selection and standards of physical attractiveness in our species.
SS is conducted by women in this species.
It hasn’t changed at all. These guys are intellectually dishonest.
Men don’t have standards. At least, it’s rarer.
In many animal species, male reproductive success is more dependent on mating success than is female reproductive success, so sexual selection commonly acts with greater intensity on males than on females (Trivers I97I, Williams I975, Clutton-Brock and Parker i992, Andersson I994). The result is that in many species, males more than females show a syndrome of traits associated with intense sexual selection.
true, women don’t have the urgency to reproduce that men do
men are selected by women though
This “sexual selection syndrome” includes behavioral traits: males are more likely than females to resort to violence against sexual rivals and to force copulations on resisting partners;
rape is only r-selected, poor quality men, high quality men compete and win
males cpmmonly expend more time and energy and take greater risks than females in courtship;
women don’t court, they are courted
these guys are hacks
males will generally court and attempt copulation with a wider range of partners then will females.
no, that’s r/K already
The sexual selection syndrome also includes life-history traits: males commonly take longer than females to attain sexual maturity
no, untrue in humans
because of the sexual competition that they face from mature males; males commonly have higher mortality rates than females as a result of intrasexual competition;
no, stupidity, the low IQ doing dangerous things
males commonly senesce more rapidly than females because higher mortality rates reduce the selection pressure for longevity.
yes men age faster
might be genetic, as recently covered
Finally, the sexual selection syndrome includes morphological traits: males are more likely than females to display anatomical specializations for intra- and intersexual aggression, including horns, antlers, enlarged canine teeth, and body sizes in excess of the ecological optimum; males commonly show greater development of sexual advertisements, both tactile (complex genitalia) and visual (elaborate and brightly colored adornments)
selected by the females
Among humans, considerable anatomical and behavioral evidence suggests that males have been subject to stronger sexual selection than females
women are the ones doing it
these people are idiots
Human males are larger than females. Human males attain sexual maturity at a later age than human females
false, women don’t finish developing physically until the twenties
miscarriages and stillbirth is higher in teen mothers compared to women in their 20s, that’s the reason we married in the 20s in the middle ages
and senesce more rapidly
logically impossible given your prior claim
men age faster because they sexually mature faster, their system is simpler
they don’t need to carry a baby, duh?
Polygyny is much more common than polyandry.
No. Citation very much needed. You can’t just claim that based on current Third World religions about a time preceding those religious legal structures.
In one respect, however, human beings reverse the usual pattern of differences between more and less sexually selected sexes-men are more concerned than women with the physical attractiveness of a potential sexual partner.
Men are more shallow, yes. Doesn’t mean they have good taste.
Although women race mix less so maybe women are shallow in different ways.
This sex difference is not limited to Western society.
Buss (i 989) reviews survey data from 37 population samples from 33 countries and finds that in every sample males are more concerned than females with the physical attractiveness of a potential mate. The average sex difference is more pronounced among the non-Western populations in his sample.
Again why care?
The attractiveness of the man usually depends predominantly upon his skills and prowess rather than upon his physical appearance.”
You didn’t ask the women. Ugly researchers claim women don’t care how they look.
It’s pure cope.
Gregersen (i983) reports similar findings in a more recent review of nearly 300 societies,
mostly non-Western and nonurbanized. In other words, human beings seem to be an exception
to the general rule among animals that male attractiveness matters more than female attractiveness. The importance attached to female (as opposed to male) physical attractiveness in our species stands in need of an explanation.
Yeah this study doesn’t apply to Europeans whatsoever, only the bad faith actors are using this.
Male attractiveness does matter more. Third Worlders aren’t sexually selecting, they’re trying to survive or forced to marry. That isn’t evolutionary, it’s societal modern pressure.
Men wouldn’t go down the gym if they weren’t competing on looks.
Many anthropologists believe
that human behavior is so radically different in its ontogeny from that of other organisms that the theory of sexual selection is not applicable to human physical attraction.
….or you’re wrong? And bad at your job?
Anthropology is mostly BS, they are not evolutionary biologists.
Polhemus (i988:8) probably expresses the attitude of a whole school of anthropology of “the body” concerning the human irrelevance of the theory of sexual selection when he writes:
A male baboon has a fixed idea of what a desirable female baboon should look like…. The same general principle is true of any animal that reproduces by sexual selection. But there is an important difference between baboons and ourselves. For other animals the physical ideal is ioo% instinctively determined. Thus all baboons of a particular species pursue the same ideal…. For humans, on the other
hand, ideals of beauty are learned….
This is not science.
In a worldwide and historical framework, there is no such thing as natural human beauty.
So they’re debunking their own paper.
If beauty isn’t objective, I needn’t continue. A little, then.
If this view of the difference between human and nonhuman psychology were correct,
the anomaly of female attractiveness in our species might be merely one more consequence of our having freed ourselves from the instinctive constraints that hobble the lives of other animals. This view, however, is doubly wrong.
First, learning often plays a large role in the acquisition of standards of attractiveness among nonhuman animals. An immense literature demonstrates that early experience influences later mate choice via imprinting (Immelman I972). Imitation, too, plays a role in mate choice among nonhuman animals, and social transmission of mating preferences can even result in “fads” in mate choice that change from one breeding season to the next (Pruett-Jones i992).
Mixed race ad propaganda explained.
Second, physical attraction in humans cannot be entirely a product of enculturation. This is shown most
dramatically by the experiments of Langlois et al. (i987).
In these experiments, infants between the ages of two and three months were exposed to pictures of women rated attractive and unattractive by adult raters; infants spent more time looking at faces rated attractive. This held even across racial/cultural boundaries: for European-American infants looking at faces of AfricanAmerican women rated by African-American men and for African-American infants exposed to EuropeanAmerican faces rated by European-American men.
Thus students of physical attractiveness are asking for trouble if they start out assuming that nonhuman
animals are creatures of instinct and humans constructions of culture. A better starting point regarding the role of learning in behavior is suggested by several decades of research in comparative psychology: as a general rule, organisms have relatively “hard-wired” or canalized responses to stimuli that have had relatively unvarying fitness consequences over evolutionary time and relatively flexible learned responses to stimuli that have been associated sometimes with positive fitness consequences and sometimes with negative. In other words, given that learning entails costs, in terms of trial and error, organisms are expected to adapt to selectively important invariants in their environments with corresponding behavioral, cognitive, or motivational invariances (Seligman I970, Johnston 1982).
These people are morons.
How can we apply this principle to the anomaly of female attractiveness in our species? Let us define the mate value of a potential sexual partner, A, as the expected reproductive success from mating with A divided by some baseline expected reproductive success. The baseline expected reproductive success might be the expected reproductive success from mating at random or from mating with an individual of maximum mate value.
r v K
As a general rule we expect that human beings, and other animals, are likely to have both relatively canalized, “hard-wired” responses to visual stimuli that have been consistently associated with high mate value throughout the evolutionary history of the species and relatively flexible learned responses to stimuli that have been associated sometimes with high mate value and sometimes with low. In other words, standards of physical attractiveness are likely to have both species-typical and population-specific components, and variation in these components may be predictable given knowledge
of human biology and local circumstances (Symons I979). For example, since fat stores may be selectively advantageous in environments subject to episodic food shortage and disadvantageous in environments requiring considerable physical movement, one might expect that esthetic responses to fatness would vary between populations depending on social learning and on individual assessments of the consequences of being fat or thin, rather than developing in a uniform fashion within the human species.
By contrast, one might expect human beings to have a relatively invariant, species-typical emotional response to signs of aging, because age has a relatively invariant association with fecundity and thus with mate value.
association is weak, not causation
distinguish aging from maturation, you cannot
In a classic article Henry (i96i) reviews data on age-specific fertility rates in a wide range of “naturalfertility” (noncontracepting) populations. The levels of fertility in these populations range from a lifetime average of 6 to i i children per married female, but the shapes of the curves of fertility versus age are remarkably similar across all populations. For all populations, female fertility rates at age 30-34 are around 85% of rates at age 20-24, with further declines to around 35 % for women aged 40-44 and o% for women aged 50-54.
They don’t count teens because they are not mature to breed.
More recent work suggests that the curve of natural fecundity (potential reproduction) differ somewhat from the curve of natural fertility (actual reproduction) because the latter is influenced by such variables as age of spouse and frequency of intercourse (James I979, Menken, Trussell, and Larsen i986). Studies that control for the latter variables suggest that the decline in female Fecundity between 20 and 35 is less pronounced than the decline in female natural fertility-but the overall shapes of the two curves are fairly similar.
Most drop in conception is the men aging, paternal age.
That’s why older woman/younger man couples are more fertile.
The shape of the curve of fecundity versus age is very
different for males. Goldman and Montgomery (i989),
reviewing data from several traditional societies, report
Eertility declines to about 90% for men between 45 and
50, relative to younger men, and to about 8o% for men
over 55, after controlling for age of wife and duration of
Fecundity versus age curves thus have two important
characteristics that may help to explain the anomaly of
the curves (i) are relatively invariant in shape across populations
no, relatively means you’re wrong
and (2) show an earlier and more pronounced decline in fertility among females than among males.
Paternal age studies debunked this.
Given the general rule that organisms commonly have invariant responses to stimuli that have had relatively invariant fitness consequences over evolutionary time, the first characteristic
suggests that human beings are likely to have relatively invariant esthetic responses to signs of aging. The second characteristic suggests that these responses are likely to be stronger in males’ evaluations of females than in females’ evaluations of males.
Men are too weak to be judged on their looks by women. Too triggered.
This does not add up to a complete theory of physical
attractiveness, of course, or even a complete theory of
age-related changes in physical attractiveness. Fecundity
is only one component of mate value. Other components
include the ability and willingness to provision offspring
and heritable viability or attractiveness (“good genes”),
and these components of mate value may also vary with
age, while sensory bias will ensure that attractiveness
does not track mate value perfectly. Nevertheless, agerelated changes in fecundity are likely to be a particularly important component of age-related changes in physical attractiveness, especially in females, both because these changes have been relatively invariant over the history of the species and because other components of mate value such as provisioning ability and inclination may be more readily assessable on the basis of behavior than on the basis of physical appearance.
There is one alternative explanation for male attraction to youthful features in females that requires a more extended treatment.
Extended? You’ve done nothing so far. This paper is filler.
Gowaty (I992:23I-40) writes:
There should be strong selection on males to control
females’ reproduction through direct coercive control of females….
It’s called marriage.
Evolutionary thinkers, whether informed by feminist ideas or not, are not surprised
by one of the overwhelming facts of patriarchal cultures, namely that men … seek to constrain and
control the reproductive capacities of women…. Juvenilization decreases the threat some men may feel when confronted with women;
many men are comfortable around women whom they can clearly dominate and are profoundly uncomfortable around women whom they cannot so clearly dominate.
r-types, not real men
The hypothesis that femininity signals ability to be dominated through juvenilization is an alternative to, but not necessarily mutually exclusive of, other evolutionary hypotheses that posit that femininity signals, sometimes deceptively, reproductive value and fertility.
Several findings seem to be at odds with this hypothesis.
Berry and McArthur (i986) presented subjects with a series of outline profile drawings representing individuals ranging from juvenile to adult and collected ratings of
perceived social characteristics of each drawing. The
drawing rated weakest and least threatening was the
most juvenile-looking. (Subjects judged this drawing to
represent a 4-year-old.) The drawing rated sexiest was
intermediate in juvenility. (It was judged to be 23 years
old.) In other words, the level of juvenility that maximizes perceived vulnerability does not maximize perceived sexiness.
Because only pedophiles like children sexually.
Real men like sexually mature WOMEN.
Kenrick and co-workers (Kenrick I994)
show that for teenage males the ideal sexual partner is
older than they are-again, more consistent with the
hypothesis that males are concerned with cues to female
fecundity than with the hypothesis that males prefer
younger, more easily dominated females. Thus current
evidence suggests that female attractiveness cannot
simply be equated with powerlessness and that something more than changes in perceived vulnerability is involved in age-related changes in physical attractiveness. However, nothing in evolutionary theory rules out the possibility that markers of female submissiveness may be attractive to men, and the topic certainly deserves more research.
There may be room for argument about why attractiveness changes with age, but, in spite of a considerable literature devoted to the claim that human sexuality and standards of physical attractiveness are culturally constructed, there does not seem to be any evidence from any society that seriously challenges the proposition that physical attractiveness is perceived to decline from
young adulthood to old age, especially for females.
Yeah, funny that? Especially but not only. Men hit the Wall too, it’s called being human.
Because women are the ones selecting, idiots. Beggars can’t be choosers. Men are sexually desperate, overall.
“The correlation of female age and sexual attractiveness is so
also not causation
when is the actual study? this waffle is nauseatingly wrong
that ethnographers apparently take
it for granted-as they do the bipedalism of the people
they study-and the significance of female age tends to
be mentioned only in passing, in discussions of something else” (Symons I979:i88). Symons cites passing references to the effects of aging on female attractiveness
in ethnographies of the Kgatla, pre-revolutionary China,
the Yanomamo, and the Tiwi. Additional references can
be found in ethnographies of Trobriand Islanders (Malinowski I987 [i929], Weiner I976) and Gawa (Munn
I986) of Melanesia, Mende (Boone i986) of Sierra Leone,
and Mehinaku of Amazonia (Gregor i985), to name just
Who is this intellectually dishonest?
A number of social psychological studies (reviewed in Jackson i992) have documented such agerelated declines in physical attractiveness and demonstrated the expected sex differences as well.
Let us summarize the argument up to this point. Human beings are anomalous among sexually selected species in the importance attached to female (relative to
male) appearance in mate choice.
unproven, not science
Human beings are
anomalous in another respect as well: female fertility
commonly declines to zero long before the end of the
Biology explained this.
As a result of menopause there is considerably
more age-related variance in fecundity among adult females than among adult males in our species. The second anomaly may explain the first: the importance
attached to female attractiveness in our species may reflect the operation of adaptations for assessing agerelated changes in fecundity, a component of female
Men aren’t the peahens of the species! LIES.
Whether for this reason or another, social psychological and ethnographic evidence provides overwhelming support for the proposition that human beings have relatively invariant esthetic responses to signs of males’ aging and that these responses operate more strongly in evaluations of females than vice versa.
“overwhelming support for the proposition” WHERE
you are making that up
Women assess men all the time. We’re more realistic. They try to call us fussy but a lot of fuggos survive under dysgenic conditions, it’s realistic to think most men look like a dumpster fire compared to the WW2 gen. Look at photos!
Thus far we have been exclusively concerned with changes in attractiveness with age rather than differences in attractiveness between individuals of the same age. However, if age-detecting mechanisms do not operate with perfect accuracy, then adaptations for choosing a mate of a particular age may lead incidentally to nonadaptive biases in the choice of mates from among individuals who fall within a particular age-class. In other words,
non-adaptive adaptations are impossible
clue’s in the name
what mental midgets wrote this shit?
given that attractiveness varies with age, individuals may be more or less attractive than others of the
same age in part because they have facial proportions associated with younger or older ages.
no attractiveness is lower genetic load, stfu
there are young ugly people and older hot ones
Because the retention of traits from early stages of the life cycle into later stages, relative to ancestors or to other members of the population, is known as neoteny (“holding on to youth”), the proposition above may be rephrased: given that attractiveness varies with age, neoteny may be a component of facial attractiveness.
That wall of text for MAY?
This proposition may hold with particular force for female facial attractiveness: a by-product of the human male’s attraction to markers of youthful fecundity may be an attraction to adult females presenting markers of youth to an exaggerated or “supernormal” degree.
No, we call those sexual predators.
This is now the Pedo Paper.
Beginning with the anomaly of female attractiveness in our species, we are led to the hypothesis that neoteny may be a component of female facial attractiveness.
aka we guessed
and there is no anomaly
The remainder of this paper will be given over to testing and elaborating this hypothesis.
I doubt it.
These scribbles are not scientific. You need computer models like Marquardt to measure it!
There is no breadth of jaw variation, no round or narrow eye shape, no flat or pointed nose, no mouth breadth or narrowness!
A shape subject to positive cardioidal strain (k > o) shows a downward and outward expansion in features located toward the bottom and a downward and inward contraction in features located toward the top.
while the transformed faces were redrawn from the original face with the assistance of polar coordinate graph paper.
This is not a paper. It’s a joke.
These affect the relative sizes of eyes, noses, ears,
and lips. “Beginning at age 25, the eyebrows steadily
descend from a position well above the supraorbital rim
to a point far below it; sagging of the lateral aspect of
the eyebrows make the eyes seem smaller” (Larrabee
and Makielski I993:I4). Cartilaginous tissues grow
steadily throughout adulthood: ears get bigger, and
noses get longer, wider, and more protrusive with increasing age. With the loss of connective tissue, the vermilion or red zone of the lips gets thinner (Enlow I990,
Larrabee and Makielski I993, Susanne I977).
As a result of changes in hard and soft tissue with age,
it is possible to estimate ages of adults using information about the relative sizes of eyes, noses, and lips
I dunno, gamines exist as do old-looking young people.
Gould also argued “that the whole enterprise of ranking groups by degree of neoteny is fundamentally unjustified” (Gould, 1996, pg. 150). Doug Jones argued that human evolution’s trend toward neoteny may have been caused by sexual selection in human evolution for neotenous facial traits in women by men with the resulting neoteny in male faces being a “by-product” of sexual selection for neotenous female faces.
MAY – no proof, but it MAY! I may sprout a dick and call myself Charlie! I MAY!
so the pedo-bears are only finding this shitty paper from the 90s thanks to wikipedia 
talk about cherry-picking, all evobio is against this
anthropology is nothing
He’s right, Gould, but Marquardt already measured this.
Neotony – large round eyes (down to almond) – MOST important feature for this trait
Peramorphic – slanted, narrow eyes
Neotony – large forehead (3rd)
Peramorphic – short forehead
Neotony – soft gracile jaw (2nd most important feature for the trait)
Peramorphic – square or manjaw
The actual studies have been done, in computers. By real scientists.
Women also have a narrower mouth than men to match the jaw, also dimorphic.
Comparing races using ONE trait is ridiculous.
One paragraph on wikipedia is all it gets for human neotony, and doesn’t actually list the traits, distinguished from pedomorphic ones.
It doesn’t even study white countries, let alone compare European nations to one another!
Who uses this and doesn’t bother to actually read it? Mental manlets, mostly.
“My own observations in Brazil corroborate his account of sexuality in China. “
Brazilians often suggest that men in such relationships are especially vulnerable to cuckoldry and
because the WOMEN are the sexual selecting sex!
Cuckoldry wouldn’t happen without it!
What sort of weeb would cite this?
. But Symons’s (I995) recent work on this subject has persuaded me that we need direct tests of the possibility that estrogen/androgen ratios and parity have effects on facial attractiveness over and above the effects of aging.2
This is very simple. Measure women on every race in their native continent and test their saliva for T and E. No Pill users allowed, they cheat. Dare any weeb to do that study because manjaw women are higher T.
Even Asian men are reported to prefer white women!
A classic example is reported by Wagatsumc
(in the paper Jones cites). On first contact, Japanese mer
perceived white Western women as less physically at
tractive than Japanese women in most features, includ
ing skin texture, facial hair, and eye color. But the men
perceived Western women’s typical skin color as more
attractive, because it was a bit lighter than the adult
Japanese female average and, hence, close to their ideal
Oestrogen causes paler skin. That’s why they bleach.
From the Latin lover trope, even among whites, S Europeans have slightly higher T but this only works best within a race.
If there is significant interpopulation variation in fa
cial proportions, the perception of neoteny may be anal
ogous to the perception of skin color. That is, human
males may have been selected to prefer female faces:
features that are relatively neotenous, by local stan
dards, rather than to prefer certain absolute facial pro
portions. If so, males will not necessarily prefer female
features that are neotenous by the standards of every
those are pedophiles
Surely it is possible for a woman’s eyes to be too large, her lower face too short, her nose
too small, and her lips too full (imagine Betty Boop as a real woman). In fact, Jones’s data imply a ceiling effect for the attractiveness of facial neoteny even within populations.
Their example of neotony is a white woman, study ignores Europe.
So the add-on admits you can’t apply between races nor use one trait to judge everything.
That’s literally the conclusion in their own anthro paper. Do not cite this, creeps.
A species-typical male psychological mechanism that instantiates the rule “Prefer female skin that is a bit
lighter than the adult female average” (in ancestral populations relative lightness probably signified nubility, nulliparity, and high estrogen levels) would result in very different absolute skin color ideals in Nigeria and Norway
Yeah Nigerians are rejecting all the Norwegians girls as “too light”. That’s reality.
Nigerian men would perceive Norwegian women as much too light
Yet high androgen levels in women are positively correlated with reproductive system dysfunctions, and observable indices of high androgen levels-such as acne, hirsutism, and a high waist-to-hip ratio-seem to be systematically perceived as unattractive. To my eye, the faces in Jones’s figure
appear to differ more in “masculinity” than in age.
Maternal bone formation rates are elevated during pregnancy, which may permanently lengthen the mother’s face, and a growth hormone (hGH-V) is expressed in the placenta and secreted in large amounts into the maternal circulation which may permanently “coarsen” her facial features.
What is this paper. No, that doesn’t happen.
If the human male’s preference for neotenous facial features is merely a by-product, it presumably would have entailed at least some costs in ancestral populations. For example, assuming that Jones’s hypothesis is correct, an ancestral male given the opportunity to choose between two potential mates of the same age one of whom (A) had a more neotenous face than the other (B), would have been willing to pay a higher bride price for A because of her more attractive face, although B, at a lower bride-price, would have represented better value; or he might have failed to acquire B’s superior weaving skills, which would have contributed something to his fitness, and instead acquired A’s more gracile jaw, larger eyes, smaller nose, and fuller lips, which according to the by-product hypothesis, would have contributed nothing; or he might have chosen an older female with neotenous features over a younger female (higher mate value) with average features.
Genetic load explains that.
Narrow mouths are also neotony, look at babies. That’s why the lips look full.
” While this paper has emphasized the “biological” side of physical attractiveness, with the modern
theory of sexual selection as a starting point, this theory will undoubtedly have to be expanded and revised to allow for the unique importance of social learning in our species”
Nurture applied to biology, that’s why it’s wrong.
-because of course it fucking isn’t, hysterical windbags of the MRA forums, it’s basic evolution.
More male babies die too. Their genome is weaker, more fragile. Sorry Mother Nature doesn’t coddle delusions of invincibility.
“suggesting the second copy offers a protective effect.”
known for decades
how many blues would you want to build a house? fewer or more?
“which could point to pathways for extending life” not for men
it’s like anything genetic, the people in a stronger position just win harder
HBD hates men? lol no
Imagine if immortality was possible but only for women?
Because it might be so.
Maybe doppel genes are required for it. We dunno.
Women existed in the genetic record prior to men, men are the mutants of the species. As abnormal, they’d be likelier to die. It isn’t personal, narcs.
Women can self-fertilise, men aren’t technically needed. Our cells can mutate into sperm, it’s biologically possible. The cell types that can mutate are called polar bodies.
“The idea that a second copy of the same sex chromosome is protective has been around for a while, supported by the observation that in mammals – where females have two of the same sex chromosomes – males tend to have shorter lifespans. In birds, males live longer on average and have two Z chromosomes, while females have one Z and one W chromosome.”
God hates men? Would explain the proclivity to violence and why in Genesis Adam was told he needs a woman. One woman.
He did not tell women they need a man.
Any claim to that effect adds to the Word and is un-Christian.
“The results reveal that individuals with two of the same sex chromosomes live 17.6% longer, on average, than those with either two different sex chromosomes or just one sex chromosome.
The team say the findings back a theory known as the “unguarded X hypothesis”. In human cells, sex chromosome combinations are generally either XY (male) or XX (female). In females only one X chromosome is activated at random in each cell.
As a result, a harmful mutation in one of the female’s X chromosomes will not affect all cells, and hence its impact can be masked. By contrast, as males only have one X chromosome, any harmful mutations it contains are far more likely to be exposed.”
Part of genetic load. Maybe why men defend their mother so?
In degenerate times, even more men would die. This explains male interest in politics, which will influence their own epigenetics in society. Good conditions/rules – more likely to survive.
“The team found that in species where males have two of the same sex chromosomes, these males live on average 7.1% longer than females. However, in species where the sex chromosome pattern is the other way around, such as humans, females live 20.9% longer on average than males.”
“But there are also other possibilities as to why the longevity gaps differ in size, including that oestrogen appears to protect the ends of chromosomes from being damaged – a process linked to ageing.”
Oestrogen also protects the brain from stress.
T-takers are literally killing themselves.
“For instance, owl monkey males live longer than females and the males play a big role in infant care in that species,” he said, noting such males have two different sex chromosomes.”
I have noted anecdotally that responsible K-type men outlive r-types of the same birth year, who often succumb to young (40-60yo) heart attacks and strokes, suddenly. If anyone has a study about r/K health outcomes in men esp. mortality, please link?
We know the children of monogamous men fare better.
I said you can’t pretend to be K, since it’s in your DNA.
Early cancer in r-types can easily be attributed to their microbiome being overloaded with STDs.
Vaccine research does not present an ovary histology report of tested rats but does present a testicular histology report.
Enduring ovarian capacity and duration of function following vaccination is unresearched in preclinical studies, clinical and postlicensure studies.
Unresearched. Injecting it into all the little girls with thick parents, unresearched whether the ovaries still operate or the ORGANS shut down. aka partial organ failure
Since this group includes all prepubertal and pubertal young women, demonstration of ongoing, uncompromised safety for the ovary is urgently required. This matter needs to be resolved for the purposes of population health and public vaccine confidence.
Feminists pushing this shit hate women.
Timely reminder for when they try to force these things on you/r loved ones.
“February 19, 2020 – Researchers from The University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced a critical breakthrough toward developing a vaccine for the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19).”
Why DO they want so many immigrants?
case study of a 16yo girl:
and Human papilloma virus vaccine and primary ovarian failure: another facet of the autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants.
We documented here the evidence of the potential of the HPV vaccine to trigger a life-disabling autoimmune condition. The increasing number of similar reports of post HPV vaccine-linked autoimmunity and the uncertainty of long-term clinical benefits of HPV vaccination are a matter of public health that warrants further rigorous inquiry.
Great news for misogynists everywhere. Real ones.
All three patients experienced a range of common non-specific post-vaccine symptoms including nausea, headache, sleep disturbances, arthralgia and a range of cognitive and psychiatric disturbances. According to these clinical features, a diagnosis of primary ovarian failure (POF) was determined which also fulfilled the required criteria for the ASIA syndrome.
Explains some women I’ve met.
ASIA = autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA)
A link between human papilloma virus vaccination and primary ovarian insufficiency: current analysis.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW:
Reviews are good.
The cause of primary ovarian insufficiency (POI) is multifactorial. Known causes include external factors such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, infections that lead to a permanent insult to the ovary, autoimmune conditions, and genetic causes. An association between the quadrivalent antihuman papilloma vaccine (HPV4) and POI was recently suggested.
The birth rate cult ought not to get their hopes up.
Q is, if the vaccine is so bad, what about the manwhores spreading the ‘organic’ version?
When do we outlaw sluts on population threat grounds?
An increasing number of cases of POI post-HPV4 are being reported. Possible mechanisms for the suspected effect of HPV on female reproductive function are a toxic effect or an autoimmune response. The trigger could be the vaccine immunogen contents or the adjuvants, the latter are used to increase the immune reaction.
increase, not produce
The adjuvant in HPV4 contains aluminum.
Yeah, still using it. Despite claims.
Animal models have shown aluminum exposure to inhibit expression of female reproductive hormones and to induce histologic changes in the ovaries.
I haz reasons for my quotes.
Specific genetic compositions may be more susceptible to developing an autoinflammatory syndrome after exposure to an environmental factor.
Bioweapon, by any other name.
The mechanisms responsible for POI are not yet fully understood. Although case reports cannot establish causation, awareness of a possible link between HPV4 and POI will help to identify and manage future cases that may arise.
They want people scared right now but don’t lose sight of the facts.
Don’t take any NWO shit. It’s going to be forced anyway. Rape with an object, legally.
They can claim e.g. one single paper from 2018 was “retracted” (impossible once peer-reviewed)
but that doesn’t change the hundreds of other studies documenting the same thing.
This study written by Gayle DeLong, an associate professor at Baruch College, concluded that ‘Results suggest that females who received the HPV shot were less likely to have ever been pregnant than women in the same age group who did not receive the shot.’
Scientism people are stupid. You should want a follow-up.
YES. I AM ALWAYS THE ONLY ONE WHO DOES THE BLOODY READING.