Science discovers freeze response in rape

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sexual-assault-may-trigger-involuntary-paralysis

Tonic immobility occurs in other animals, there’s plenty of biological evidence.
It’s taking years to sort out the newfangled ‘rape gang’ problem with the cheapest solution, a rope, because society (politicians) continue to labour under the delusion that the likes of Ted Bundy was just a serial killer and completely skirt that ‘serial rapist’ is a thing. Most rape is conducted by serial rapists. SJWs don’t mention this for political reasons and something something “stigma”. Like pathology can’t be a ‘bad’ thing.
Because why would predators be sexual predators, and derive pleasure from more than one form of domination and suffering?
That’s just crazy-talk.
Next you’ll say there’s some type of amygdala causing the shutdown!

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0361923006000517

Don’t look in that door!
Definitely don’t go looking for forensic evidence when it comes to rapists and rape gangs, that’s for sure!

They don’t continue to offend with full malice and moreover, escalate – like a serial killer.

This doesn’t constitute reckless public endangerment for political correctness!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/f78ad097-77d7-4ec0-8014-54ace0fc4b11
“I’m a man and I was raped.”
He froze and it wasn’t his fault, it isn’t a choice.

Die Hard lied to you.

Around predators (including the “human” variety) your brain does strange things.
It evolved because surviving with trauma is still surviving, biologically. Evolution is cruel.
In light of all this, consent laws definitely need amendment.
France needs an age of consent, for one.

Horniness =/= consent, this isn’t Brave New World.
Yet children are taught this. By the state. So they can blame the victim for, say, walking with a man or socializing. Summon the church elders, the slattern deserved it for feeling LUST! According to him. Don’t ask the adult man to control himself, perish the thought!

Imagine trying to argue that the other way, like if a man gets a random erection, that’s consent? Nope, the body is weird. Being “turned on” only equals knocking boots in porn. IRL it’s a non sequitur.

Court rules he cannot be prosecuted for rape as she did not protest

The girl’s family says she was silent as she was ‘paralysed by fear’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4925422/French-court-rules-girl-11-consented-sex-man-28.html

Coming to a bar near you

or a public street….

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woman-gang-raped-three-men-13525513

Why are women so paranoid?

You should be too. I find it deeply ironic the guys complaining women should feel safe with strangers (no?) often want to open-carry a gun just in case despite being better equipped physically to defend themselves without one.

Riddle me that bullshit.

nb

This assumes they aren’t choked, as sober (no alcohol or other drugs) people often are prior to any other assault, sexual or otherwise.

However, if they’re held down by others in a gang, usually choking is dispensed with (as forensic evidence).

Why do serial predators do this?
It can knock you out, women can be lead to a rape or kill zone elsewhere or thrown in a car for slavery, looking drunk and at best from their end, it’ll weaken your body and decision-making from oxygen deprivation.
That’s how practiced they are.

The term predator is literal, they base their lives around these machinations specifically calculated to exploit your human weaknesses including politeness, conformity and friendliness. How many discussions of rape mention this fact?

If only that drunk man knew this, he might’ve been spared. We distrust nice people for this reason.

“We must learn and then teach our children that niceness does not equal goodness. Niceness is a decision, a strategy of social interaction; it is not a character trait. People seeking to control others almost always present the image of a nice person in the beginning.” – Gavin De Becker

The guys online who don’t get this don’t want laws that protect them, too. Because plenty of serial rapists (unPC spoiler alert) are men – and gay. Deep down, a lot of men already know this and it’s a big factor in homoaversion. Avoiding rape, they have every right to.

Personally I don’t believe it’s fair on other prisoners to put rapists with the rest of the population.

We demand unmasking laws

Notice the efforts to ban hoodies went away and crime spiked?
Scientifically, it produces more antisocial behaviour.
http://www.academia.edu/331707/The_Role_of_Anonymity_In_Deindividuated_Behavior_A_Comparison_of_Deindividuation_Theory_and_the_Social_Identity_Model_of_Deindividuation_Effects_SIDE_

I’ll believe it’s religious when the men fully adopt it.

It’s called deindividuation.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10600364_Deindividuation_Anonymity_and_Violence_Findings_From_Northern_Ireland

The findings revealed that significant positive relationships existed between the use of disguises and several measures of aggression

It’s a known finding over many, many studies. It’s Established Science TM.

(Police wearing facial protection have ID numbers displayed.)

If they have a public cause, the purpose of appearing in public about it is to lend your face and voice. Anything less is terrorism and intimidation for the reasons below.

Sumptuary laws are culturally encouraged for preservation of the peace.

https://www.thoughtco.com/medieval-sumptuary-laws-1788617
Jewish leaders issued sumptuary guidelines out of concern for the safety of their community. Medieval Jews were discouraged from dressing like Christians, in part for fear that assimilation could lead to conversion.”

It directly damages social trust to allow any group to go about publicly with their face covered.

It’s evolution!
http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2011/05/facial-expressions.aspx

“Arguably the most important contribution basic science has made to our understanding of emotion concerns the universality of facial expressions of emotion. Darwin (1872) was the first to suggest that they were universal; his ideas about emotions were a centerpiece of his theory of evolution, suggesting that emotions and their expressions were biologically innate and evolutionarily adaptive, and that similarities in them could be seen phylogenetically.”…

Yes, since established.

Real World Applications of the Basic Science of Facial Expressions of Emotion

Findings concerning the universality of facial expressions of emotion and the existence of microexpressions can help people in a range of professions requiring face-to-face interactions improve their skills in reading the emotions of others. Reading facial expressions of emotion, and especially microexpressions, can aid the development of rapport, trust, and collegiality; they can be useful in making credibility assessments, evaluating truthfulness and detecting deception; and better information about emotional states provides the basis for better cooperation, negotiation, or sales.

Multiculturalism is impossible with covered and concealed facial expressions.

It is anti-assimilation, it is intolerant and breeds a sense of alienation, hostility and distrust.

Mixed race isn’t a race

Must I really point this out?

1,000 words

They’d be scared to put me on trial because they’d be forced to admit I’m correct.

On court records for the next thousand years.

It felt churlish to point this out before, I considered it obvious.

We use the term race to be polite, technically they don’t have one.

However, circumstances compel me to explain.

They believe in superiority but not race (mixed isn’t a race).

That is irrational.

The rhetoric that “mixed race are superior” is absurd on many levels.
Here’s one, the most biological and side-stepping value judgements.

A few sharper ones claim to be raceless, this is true.

As updated for clarity:

A race evolves over millennia in precise environments and overcoming specific (natural) selection events, it’s like saying you invented a primary colour. A human group can’t evolve in ALL/NO environment, especially with no advantageous mutational benefit to the organism’s fitness (why I emphasize health).

Mate selection requires informed consent. Medicine isn’t telling them about these things until it’s too late and they experience the problems firsthand. With no warning.

Naturally, not knowing the information (usually they are never told!), they’ll tend to blame themselves as individual parents when it’s really the mating strategy combination. It used to cause health problems in royalty too, since they’d marry across vast distances. Repeating the behaviour made it cumulative. They became too inbred by outbreeding too much, narrowing to a smaller and smaller niche of potential breeding partners with every generation.

There are no separate human groupings (sub-species) made from pre-existing groups! It’s logically impossible! It’s a little like cutting a slice of cake and acting like it’s a new, whole cake. The genetic tree doesn’t sprout from air!

It’s called a phylogenetic tree and I made you one to illustrate my point.
See? I care.
This is the easy to read version because it fits well on the timeline of history.

Rest of the edit:

Genetically, they’re creating niche sub-subraces with severely restricted breeding opportunities (explaining the IVF rates) and I’ve yet to see a mixed race fertility study go into grandparents and great-grandparents, which could already be done.

Maybe it was done and never published.

Cult of silence.

Parental attitudes of mixed children would also be a thrilling read.

As a niche group whose rarer, more recessive mutations are swiftly lost in the blend, we would expect their fertility overall to drop with each generation (this includes mixed White and could explain secular America below replacement level).

A Northern Italian subrace man mixed with an Austrian subrace woman is mixed race (of the White European thede) but we never think of it that accurate way, do we?

We think of a more PC form of mulatto, which is narrower and limited as an idea.
(50% “black”/50% “white” and up to two generations applicable tops).

They’re toying with the definitions of the levels.

Again, because I love you. I want you to understand. Origin of the Species isn’t on the national school curriculum, causing me to write in full earnest. Someone must tell you.

Illustrated:

Subraces you have likely heard of includes Celts, Picts, Basque, Angles, Saxons, Normans, the Cornish and so on.

The modern concept of “mixed race” is false in every conceivable permutation.

Tell me, where do they fit in? On the tree, show me. Where’s the root? Nobody is allowed to ask about the details because it’s political, it isn’t scientific.

A liger is neither a lion nor a tiger. Those are exclusive categories.

We’re defining them by their parents for linguistic convenience.
They are a mix of their parent’s race/s (evolved identity) but they themselves as an individual organism don’t have one.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of novel sub-subraces. Precise combinations. It depends the fine-grain you want. The mixed part itself is also a category error because it lumps them all in together.

An individual whose mixture is of Celt, Basque, Alpine and Nord heritage has nothing in common neither biologically nor culturally with a combination in one individual of Sub-Saharan African, Aboriginal Australian, Inuit, Yayoi and South American.

Yet they’d lead you to believe this (lie).

It’s called a voting bloc.

Sometimes you can destroy many group’s unique interests by making them sacrifice for a larger group they don’t truly belong to (Empires fall).

Politically, they’re being played because each type will have its own issues and needs and this means none can truly be studied (similar to how most clinical trials are done on men and there are medical problems* applying their findings to women).

*fatal problems

Subraces arose naturally in evolutionary history, they evolved. Their mutations are stable because they’ve weathered thousands of years of events including war or since gone extinct.

This artificial combination called both mixed (too ambiguous) and race (just no, too specific and wrong) when it is neither, is novel (practically born yesterday, unproven) and in mutational terms, that isn’t a good thing.

Surely people deserve to know this information as teenagers or earlier before they consider how to marry?

A lot of people, when thinking of who should father/mother their children, consider the child’s health their primary concern. This is too important to ignore. Studies must be conducted, the burden of proof is directly heaped upon those making the positive claims e.g. sunny Pollyanna health and life outcomes, magically.

From what little I can find on the subject, the evidence points in quite the opposite trajectory.

Whatever happened to consent?

Information first!

It’s a clear public interest case especially where healthcare is taxpayer funded.
Assuming you want governments lead by science than superstition?

While I’m here “there’s one race, the human race” is bullshit, I trust you knew that too?

“Human race” predates Darwin’s work and the formal classification of species.
e.g.
http://classicalpoets.org/lord-byrons-romantic-ode-to-the-ocean-2/
“That I might all forget the human race,
And, hating no one, love but only her!”

Charles Darwin was a toddler at publication.

Homo is our genus, sapiens our species. Humans/humanity/mankind is a species.
We have a race (or not). We are always a species.
If you want to deny your brain, (sapiens), go ahead!
It’s totally unscientific to say “human race”, in fact, it’s anti-science.

Congratulations, if you use that term seriously you’re a Creationist.
A liberal Creationist.

Atom predates particle physics too, STFU.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/Atom

An ancient term of philosophical speculation (in Leucippus, Democritus); revived scientifically 1805 by British chemist John Dalton. In late classical and medieval use also a unit of time, 22,560 to the hour.

Read more.

“Just being a Negro doesn’t qualify you to understand the race situation any more than being sick makes you an expert on medicine.” [Dick Gregory, 1964]

I have.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thioda#Old_Saxon

So in conclusion, yes, contrary to another lie, the idea of race has always existed.

Racial erasure is a form of genocide. Race is exclusive as a sub-category of species. No false equivalence here today, thank you. One is not zero, blue is not red and water is not fire.

Anglo- peoples (please research others at your leisure) simply called it something/s else.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thede#English

Americans are too uneducated to bloody check!

Sorry, I’ve revealed my power level, haven’t I?

Edit: to really put the cat among the pigeons, advocates of a raceless world are genophobic.

Contrary to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/genophilia and scientific.

They personally fear breeding with their own kind but an extension of the term would easily apply to a strong sociosexual aversion to one’s own people, culture or kin. Expansions happen all the time if there’s a need in behaviour (see ‘gay’).

OR geno-cidal, a willful termination of their group included, which we knew.

Medically, they would be suffering from:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/xenomania#English

Humans fear sickness

https://www.insidescience.org/news/brief-sick-people-look-and-smell-less-likeable

I wonder if this has any application to r/K.

Oooof course it does.

It’s like watching someone line up dominoes.

I’d love a study on rotavirus infection history and political alignment.

https://www.insidescience.org/news/cant-eat-wheat-blame-humble-virus

Reovirus and aggression?

How about HPV-worn cells? If the infection clears, would that alter behaviour, much like TPG?

Beauty is pretty objective and makes you a better person

http://jonathanstray.com/papers/Langlois.pdf

Common maxims about beauty suggest that attractiveness is not important in life. In contrast, both fitness-related evolutionary theory and socialization theory suggest that attractiveness influences development and interaction. In 11 meta-analyses, the authors evaluate these contradictory claims, demonstrating that (a) raters agree about who is and is not attractive, both within and across cultures; (b) attractive children and adults are judged more positively than unattractive children and adults, even by those who know them; (c) attractive children and adults are treated more positively than unattractive children and adults, even by those who know them; and (d) attractive children and adults exhibit more positive behaviors and traits than unattractive children and adults. Results are used to evaluate social and fitness-related evolutionary theories and the veracity of maxims about beauty.

D is the kicker. Natural outer genetic beauty appears to match prosocial, heavily culturally-informed behaviours aka inner beauty.

Beautiful people also have higher IQs, suggesting greater overall fitness.

See my link about The Mating Mind. Contrary to popular belief, Darwin accounts for intelligence as part of the package of attractiveness.

Female attractiveness and male resources, an exchange

As explained by Monroe.

Don’t you know that a man being rich is like a girl being pretty?

You wouldn’t marry a girl just because she’s pretty….

But my goodness, doesn’t it help?

And if you had a daughter, wouldn’t you rather she didn’t marry a poor man?

You’d want her to have the most wonderful things in the world and be very happy.

Why is it wrong for me to want those things?

Telling a woman not to crave the security to raise her children is like telling men to have children with ugly women out of pity because don’t they deserve a chance? It’s unnatural and wrong, morally.

If you don’t like it, get a sex change.

These are evolved response sets.

Men want babies. They crave sex and companionship.

Women want babies. They crave love and commitment, and isn’t the last easier with a man who can afford to commit time, too?

Paper: What is Cultural Evolution?

http://www.humannature.hps.cam.ac.uk/PrepubPrinceton.pdf

Many of you are familiar with cyclical theories of history, they often include a heavy cultural component, for example assigning Millennials the status of a Hero Generation.

The mantle of Western Civ would also  come under this heading.