Sexual dimorphism and health

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/270/Suppl_1/S93

“Incels” reee.

Evolutionary psychologists suggest that a preference for sexually dimorphic traits in human faces is an adaptation for mate choice, because such traits reflect health during development. For male faces, this claim rests on the immunocompetence-handicap hypothesis, which states that the increased testosterone levels needed to develop large masculine traits stress the immune system. We examined whether masculine traits in adolescent male faces are associated with health during development, and also whether feminine traits in adolescent female faces signal health. Feminine traits are attractive, but it is less clear whether they should signal health.

Being fertile = female health as a teen. More women are viable than men. Most men would die in crime, competition and war.

To be fair

Rated masculinity in adolescent male faces correlated modestly with actual health, and was perceived as healthy,

Duh.

but not as attractive.

Also obvious.

Gym rats and dudebros can’t make up for an ugly mug or low caste with bulked-up bitch tits.
Women aren’t stupid.

There are tons of Muslims gunning it down the gym, thinking they can magically interest white women.
Look at them on instagram.

This doesn’t work.

Rated femininity in adolescent female faces did not correlate with actual health, although it was perceived as healthy and attractive.

What is “attractive” now is just sexy, vis a vis quite masculine (big lips need a big jaw) and the old classic beauties with fine, smaller features in harmony were the fertile ones. Ideal:

These results support the immunocompetence-handicap hypothesis for male faces in that masculine traits signalled health during adolescence. However, they suggest that any health-related evolutionary benefits obtained from preferences for attractive facial traits may be weak.

Patriarchs don’t let their daughters marry pretty sluts, either.

Women do care about appearance, just genetic cues; not something easily faked with estrogenic wheatgrass powders and self-destructive vain exercise habits. Straight women are not attracted to men who look – sorry – gay.

The two options in modern life aren’t slob or effete but you wouldn’t know it looking.

A man is not measured by the size of his muscles or his notch counts.

Fitness is real masculinity, you earn real muscle by building something or fighting someone.

We could build orphanages and pave roads but no, that’s low status work-out, can’t do that! Might be patriotic and prosocial!

The hospitals and old manors crumble while men “slave” to look half-starved and wax their chest, history will deserve to mock your generation. The rich bastards on the Titanic had a gym.

Useful people got PAID to work out! I know! Crazy!

Many of history’s greatest men were slender virgins and they’ll matter more than any of these “Beautiful Ones” suiciding themselves out of the gene pool. Women want men, not some metrosexual who might come out as gay once they’ve pumped you for three kids. If you see a white woman, with an Asian, note he isn’t the gym type and was willing to propose and raise a family (what makes a man).

Link: Amazon Women and why men exist

http://masculineprinciple.blogspot.ca/2015/03/the-amazon-women-science-of-why-males.html

Mostly correct but I must point out the hypergamy thing is bullshit. Hypergamy is based on a higher social status of (in the manosphere) men that women try to borrow or steal. This tries to argue it’s still hypergamy when women have the high social value. WTF? That makes the opposite of sense.

Sorry, no.

wrong dr house urgh shut up idiots

Hypergamy is a social science concept based in social status. It isn’t sexual. It isn’t genetic. Please stop.
It’s like the manosphere is doing a version of that feminist thing where they keep adding to the definition of rape when it suits them. Please stop and use another word for that thing.

I won’t leave you without explanation for replacement.

Babies are parasites to the mother’s body. Baby boys are worse. They are an immunological risk. The mother already suffers microchimerism of the brain and other safeguards are in place to prevent further damage or the reverse, miscarrying/naturally aborting all males to protect the mother fully, which would effectively kill off the species.

It’s a balancing act.

Stop trying to find a winner.

Quick lesson on evolution:

The Y chromosome is younger. Look it up (see n.b.). The Bible is wrong. Women came first. We were self-fertilizing (parthenogenesis) as a simpler asexual species. Much later, we became sexually reproductive as a species, diverging into a sexually dimorphic male and female, because it allowed for a greater genetic diversity and vigour (see: all sex differences) as a whole developed species allowing for faster evolution although it produces differing traits in each sex (specialization) for optimum results.

n.b.

From wikipedia as a starting point;

By definition, it is not necessary that the Y-MRCA and the mt-MRCA should have lived at the same time,[4][5] even though current (as of 2014) estimates suggest the possibility that the two individuals may well have been roughly contemporaneous (albeit with uncertainties ranging in the tens of thousands of years).[6]

The idea of man coming first doesn’t make any sense, you can tell the Bible was written by bloody men trying to justify why their wives should never defy them and how God was totally a man (even the angels were sexless). The first sex would need to bear children without the divine plan for another, good luck with that guys!

Male is the sex surplus to reproductive requirement.
The desert island situation requires women or invites death.
You can still harvest sperm from a dead man.

I love the hamstering here from a man;

Quote: “It’s interesting that many human cultures place such high value on the male.”

“Yes, I think this is a product of patriarchy. In a sense that is ironic because patriarchy evolves to gain complete control of female reproduction (monopolizing a scarce resource).”

First off, female reproduction is not “scarce.” It is everywhere!

Once every 9 months versus once every five minutes. Fuck you.

“Patriarchy” is an attempt to equalize the reproductive process between males and females. It is an attempt to take those useless males and make them productive by attaching them to the reproductive process, of which they are normally rejected from. In fact, in all of nature, the only species which tries to equalize the reproduction of the male and female is the human species.

The weak men offer the comforts of civilization in return for female dependence.
You can’t square a circle. It’s a social construct, it doesn’t change the biological reality.

This pair bonding brought the males into directly provisioning benefits for both the female and the offspring she (and he) produced. Pair bonding between the male and female stopped the tendency of males to “duff each other up” and rather, enticed them to co-operate with each other by bringing them directly into the reproductive process. You can see that this process endorses the views of Robert Briffault, quoted above, who declares that males must bring a benefit to the female in order for her to associate and reproduce with him.

Exactly.
The rest is r/K being squished into a bullshit male/female frame.

As for Amazonian women, they existed pre-civilization.
Men provide civilization and build the home, women keep it and fill it.
Fair exchange, I think.

In the beginning, the duality of sexuality (male and female gender roles) is used to overcome environmental adversity and as the adversity disappears, so does sexual restraint and the need for gender roles… which causes the fall of the civilization and thus again creates the adversity which demands gender roles be enforced.

You need to read some Biohistory, man.

Woman holds the future card, a genetic future, men build it, the cradle.

Sex Chromosomes and Genetic Material

Book source:  Recent Advances in Biological Psychiatry: The Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Convention and Scientific Program of the Society of Biological Psychiatry

Book source:
Recent Advances in Biological Psychiatry: The Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Convention and Scientific Program of the Society of Biological Psychiatry

Any “transwoman” is genetically lesser compared to a real woman, aside from the overt Y issue, as I had suspected for some time. After which point, the book discusses genetic diseases of the chromosome (they often shamelessly use these people as a verbal fucktoy and shield “what about people with different chromosomes?” as if it isn’t a disease).

I wasn’t insulting men either, the common speculation for this difference is that women need a full suite of genetic material to potentially pass on to and/or bear children.

Also see Mullerian and Wolffian ducts: http://courses.washington.edu/conj/bess/differentiation/differentiation.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I should probably quit while I’m ahead, I’ve spent far too long mulling this over with a geneticist/biologist and things are getting fuzzy. All this talk of allosomes and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).

Sex differences in the nervous system

http://www.neuroscientistnews.com/neuroinsights/neural-fundamentals-sex-differences-nervous-system

It’s a worthwhile article.


I see your feelings but science doesn’t care! 

It ends;

When Rhodes and Rubin examined sexual dimorphism in the CNS in the late 1990s, they had to create a whole new term. They defined diergism as functional or physiological differences, which is oftentimes a byproduct of sexual dimorphism. Rhodes and Rubin realized that the genetics underlying sexual differences in the CNS is more complex than just steroid-dependent mechanisms and the environment plays a role in sexual differentiation as well.  Current studies of dimorphism and diergism focus on furthering our understanding of the neurochemical basis of sexually dimorphic behavior and the mechanisms of disease.

Sexual dimorphism and perception (curvology)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11379482/Why-men-cant-see-their-girlfriends-imperfections.html

Some of this is true, other parts not.

WHR curvy female figure
Above: curvy AND skinny. It’s skeletal.
Example: Yes a man notices your flaws, but he is grateful to be having sex with you and knows never to insult your appearance in case it shuts down that willingness.

It’s long been accepted that men have evolved to appreciate proportion, rather than size. What this means in practical terms is that if a woman’s size fluctuates but shape remains the same, her partner is unlikely to notice, not because he is unobservant, but just because his brain is programmed to be more concerned with hip/waist ratio than stones and pounds.

This is true. However, most heavy women are less Christina Hendricks and more like the proportions of a masculine beer barrel. They’d still prefer a thin Christina, same WHR, to an average or fat woman with ‘curves’, she happens to hold the weight well.

In order to deal with this somewhat unusual situation (other mammals are guaranteed a shag, no matter what they look like, because they don’t have monogamy), women have established a physicalised hierarchy. The components of this hierarchy are often invisible to men, but it isn’t about them, it’s about women knowing where they fit in a pecking order.

Yes, women must destroy the competition. Never take a strange woman’s appearance-based advice if she has something to gain from it.

Of course, I don’t want to believe any of this is true. I hate to think of womankind in this way. And yet I cannot deny that it makes total sense. When I talk to David about it (and it’s a conversation that involves quite a lot of me asking him why he seems so unfazed by the inevitable backlash by ‘Twitter Feminists’ and him reassuring me that it’s just social media and everything will be fine) he tells me that women being honest about this sort of thing might actually be the key to social progress.

“Men have been forced to analyse how we interact with and treat women in professional and social environments and that was a good thing. It’s time for women to be honest about how they’re treating each other”. He says.

Most of the shit women do is for the benefit of other women

Paper: Sex Differences in the Brain: The Not So Inconvenient Truth

Cite, full document with links: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3295598/

PDF at http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey_Blaustein/publication/221683184_Sex_differences_in_the_brain_the_not_so_inconvenient_truth/links/02e7e52246fbba77bc000000.pdf

Download at http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/neurosci_facpub/48/
Alt. at http://www.jneurosci.org/content/32/7/2241.full.pdf+html

One of these has to work for you.

types of sex difference

Why did I include this snapshot? No reason…. except to shut certain people up. Please, shut up.

Also note fig4, “One strategy for detecting a “direct sex chromosome effect” on a sex difference. The importance of genetic effects tos ex differences in the brain is becoming increasingly evident, and there is now a strong strategy with which to study them.” Quit asking the same basic questions without using the search tags.

Paper: Sex differences in the human amygdala

Click to access Hamann2005.pdf

The amygdala is a structure in the temporal lobe that has long been known to play a key role in emotional responses and emotional memory in both humans and nonhuman animals. Growing evidence from recent neuroimaging studies points to a new, expanded role for the amygdala as a critical structure that mediates sex differences in emotional memory and sexual responses. This review highlights current findings from studies of sex differences in human amygdala response during emotion-related activities, such as formation of emotional memories and sexual behavior, and considers how these findings contribute to the understanding of behavioral differences between men and women. Clinical implications for the understanding of sex differences in the prevalence of affective and anxiety disorders are discussed, and future directions in the study of the amygdala’s role in human sex differences are outlined.

If this is ringing bells, Anonymous Conservative discussed amygdala damage in liberals and feminists.
Claims of anxiety disorders and PTSD? Yup. Starting to make sense, isn’t it?

Paper: Genes and brain sex differences

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21094886

Chapter begins: here.

Throughout development, numerous biological events occur that differentially affect males and females. Specifically, sex-determining genes that are triggered by the sex-chromosome complement initiate a series of events that determine an organism’s sex and lead to the differentiation of the body in sex-specific ways. Such events contribute to many unique sex differences, including the susceptibility to different diseases. Although it was believed that sex hormones singularly differentiated the brain and body, there is emerging research showing that genes also play a direct role. In this chapter, we review this line of work and focus on the use of a unique mouse model that separates the effect of gonadal hormones and sex chromosomes. As genetic technology continues to advance, our understanding of the role that hormones and genes play in sex differences can be used to advance the physical and mental health of both men and women.

Yeah, hormone therapy won’t accomplish jack shit. It isn’t a fix.

Paper: The genetic basis for sex differences in human behavior

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15180708
PDF at http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ian_Craig/publication/8525629_The_genetic_basis_for_sex_differences_in_human_behaviour_role_of_the_sex_chromosomes/links/02bfe50f6b9759577b000000.pdf

The nature of the mechanisms underlying observed sex differences in human behaviour continues to be debated. This review concentrates on the thesis that genes on the sex chromosomes other than those directly controlling sex determination, and whose functions are, at least in part, independent from hormonal influences, play a significant role in determining gender differences in behaviour. To provide an adequate basis for examining this issue, the current understanding of the nature of sex determination, differences in behaviour and the influences of sex hormones are evaluated. The possible contribution to behavioural differences of those X-linked genes which escape inactivation, or which may be subjected to imprinting, is discussed. The review concludes with a summary of the genetic basis for two sexually disparate types of behaviour.

And some of you wonder why I go on about chromosomes. Sex is cellular.

 

Trans algae show evolution behind sexual dimorphism

No one tell the feminists.
Or they might turn into Creationists.

coverage here

“Throughout evolution, living things have repeatedly developed physically distinct sexes, but how does this actually happen? A discovery in the multicellular green alga, Volvox carteri, has revealed the genetic origin of male and female sexes, showing how they evolved from a more primitive mating system in a single-celled relative.

A team of scientists led by James Umen, Ph.D., Associate Member, Enterprise Institute for Renewable Fuels at the Danforth Plant Science Center, identified the master regulatory gene for sex determination in Volvox and found that it has acquired new functions compared to a related gene in its close relative, the unicellular alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, which does not have physically distinguishable (dimorphic) sexes. Their findings are publishing in the open access journal PLOS Biology on July 8, and may also provide a possible blueprint for how sexes in other multicellular organisms like plants and animals may have originated. “

Everything in biology proves feminism wrong.
Roll on the genetics studies.

this coverage in particular made me lol;

There is nothing more natural than sexes. Throughout evolution, living things have repeatedly developed physically distinct genders but how this happens has been a puzzle.”