[Saeko]

It turns out that that whole "ovulation science" bullshit did not survive the replication crisis.

So really it was just @Truth To Power projecting his own cuckoldry fantasies onto the rest of society all along.

[Rich]

You believe that in a world where women were regarded as property that they were free to choose their partners? Do you hear yourself?

How do lefties manage to remain so totally ignorant? In pre modern Europe the majority of the population did not have arranged marriages. Prior to the eighteenth century most couples did not have church weddings. Even in cultures where the mass of people have arranged marriages, women have very considerable influence in the election of mates, just not the women whose marriage is in question. Looking at homo sapiens three hundred thousand year history most of which was as hunter gathers, women have had the dominant role in mate selection.

Why is there so much disrespect for women's physical boundaries? The answer is very simple, overall respect for women's boundaries has not been a high priority for women. We see this over and over. We saw it with Harvey Weinstein, where numerous women prioritised their acting careers over calling out this corrupt abuser.

When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.

In this now infamous quote Donald Trump is expressing his surprise at the low priority so many women put on respect for their physical boundaries. It seems clear from this quote that whether its because they are star struck, are merely just want to protect their careers, the majority of women are not calling out inappropriate and disrespectful behaviour. It is just not their top priority.

[Truth To Power]

This sexist portrayal of women as lying sluts is not an argument.

The facts of biology are sexist. Deal with it.

It is, at best, classic misogynistic tropes dressed up as pseudoscience.

<yawn> And you claim my comments are not arguments?

A more correct portrayal would be to say that women will be attracted to their mate for different reasons at different times of the month. Most of the time, they love the way their husband is a good father, kind, respectful. honest, and trusting. And when they are ovulating, these same ladies like how their husbands look without a shirt on.

No, that would actually be a less correct portrayal.

[Truth To Power]

How is the swapping of daughters for the purpose of fucking them not an exchange of women?

Daughters were not "swapped." Unlike an exchange of property, A did not get B's woman and B get A's woman, your anti-male hate propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding.

And? Do you know what dowries were for? They're for ensuring the bride and her kids would be taken care of in case of the husband's death.

Thus not being property.

Of course they were given to her husband. BECAUSE WOMEN WEREN'T ALLOWED TO OWN ANY PROPERTY.

Even if that were true (it isn't), it doesn't affect the fact that dowries prove women were not being exchanged as property: in an exchange of property, you don't pay the other party to accept your property.

[Truth To Power]

:lol: It turns out that that whole "ovulation science" bullshit did not survive the replication crisis.

So really it was just @Truth To Power projecting his own cuckoldry fantasies onto the rest of society all along.

Sorry, no, your silly music video does not "debunk evolutionary psychology."

[Pants-of-dog]

The facts of biology are sexist.

Misrepresenting your sexist portrayal of women as facts is also not an argument.

Try again.

[Saeko]

How do lefties manage to remain so totally ignorant?

Why is it that righties can never open a single fucking anthropology book?

In pre modern Europe the majority of the population did not have arranged marriages. Prior to the eighteenth century most couples did not have church weddings. Even in cultures where the mass of people have arranged marriages, women have very considerable influence in the election of mates, just not the women whose marriage is in question. Looking at homo sapiens three hundred thousand year history most of which was as hunter gathers, women have had the dominant role in mate selection.

Arranged marriage is not the same thing as forced marriage. Regardless, in almost all human societies, brides have played little to no role in choosing their own husbands until the 19th century.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3083418/

Our phylogenetic results support a deep evolutionary history of limited polygyny and brideprice/service that stems back to early modern humans and, in the case of arranged marriage, to at least the early migrations of modern humans out of Africa. It is conceivable that marriage involved some level of arrangement, regulation, and reciprocal relationships from the very earliest inception of marriage-like cultural institutions. The presence of brideprice or brideservice as the ancestral human state may be interpreted as early critical components of regulated mate exchange. The very act of a male moving away from his kin and community (e.g., brideservice) is a tremendous leap from the insular patterns in other apes. It is an indication of negotiation between kin groups and the recognition of a continued set of obligations and reciprocal transactions (alliance) between the families. This, combined with the low prevalence of polygyny as the ancestral human state, suggests that there was a reasonable level of evenness to mate exchanges (low reproductive skew).

Our reconstruction of the evolutionary history of hunter-gatherer marriage practices indicates that parents and other close kin likely had a significant influence on mate choice. How regulated marriage affected sexual selection on human mate choice preferences depends on several factors. One factor is the extent to which parental (and other senior kin) choices overlapped or diverged with that of offspring mate choice. Another factor is the extent to which marital partners chosen by parents were the actual genitors of the descendants. Worldwide extra-pair paternity rates have been estimated at around 9% [26], although there is much variation between as well as within populations [27]. Regarding the first issue, parent-offspring conflict over mate choice in contemporary Western populations has been found to contain considerable conflict of interest, as well as some expected overlap, in preferred attributes [28]–[31]. However, environmental novelty may render these findings unrepresentative of ancestral situations and a systematic examination of parental and offspring mate choice preferences among hunter-gatherers and other small-scale societies is warranted. At present, it is probably safe to conclude that an important selective pressure on the evolution of human mate choice, certainly more than any other species, has been the direct, deliberate, and conscious intervention of parents and other close kin on the sexual lives of their descendants.

Why is there so much disrespect for women's physical boundaries? The answer is very simple, overall respect for women's boundaries has not been a high priority for women. We see this over and over. We saw it with Harvey Weinstein, where numerous women prioritised their acting careers over calling out this corrupt abuser.

In this now infamous quote Donald Trump is expressing his surprise at the low priority so many women put on respect for their physical boundaries. It seems clear from this quote that whether its because they are star struck, are merely just want to protect their careers, the majority of women are not calling out inappropriate and disrespectful behaviour. It is just not their top priority.

I wish I were a total fucking idiot, because then I could believe utter bullshit like this as easily as you do.

Hey, smooth-brain. Did you know that there's a centuries spanning political movement consisting of millions of people and which is aimed at prioritizing respect for women's boundaries? You might have heard of it. FEMINISM!

[Saeko]

Daughters were not "swapped." Unlike an exchange of property, A did not get B's woman and B get A's woman, your anti-male hate propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding.

The anthropological evidence for the exchanges of females in kinship networks is so overwhelming that I'm not even gonna bother refuting this.

Thus not being property.

Dumb-shit opinion.

Even if that were true (it isn't), it doesn't affect the fact that dowries prove women were not being exchanged as property: in an exchange of property, you don't pay the other party to accept your property.

Another dumb-shit opinion. It's called a package-deal. You are not selling your daughter for money, you are selling her for alliances and future marriage opportunities.

:lol: Sorry, no, your silly music video does not "debunk evolutionary psychology.

What an absolutely pathetic retort. Though I would expect nothing more from someone who was born on the far end of the wrong side of the bell curve.

[AFAIK]

Rich has no understanding of power dynamics.

Why do people put up with shitty bosses?
Must be because they don't mind being treated like shit!

What a genius level insight that doesn't overlook every aspect of the situation.

Property was invented when men figured out that they could treat inanimate objects the same way as they treat women.

Hunter gatherer societies practice free love and some even encouraged pregnant women to have sex with multiple men because they believed sperm grew into a baby inside her womb and sleeping around would hopefully allow the child to inherit the best traits from each man. Society only started policing women's sexuality once we developed agriculture and men wanted to ensure that their biological sons inherited their land and livestock.

[Rich]

I wish I were a total fucking idiot, because then I could believe utter bullshit like this as easily as you do.

You may not be a complete fucking idiot but you're certainly no genius in this area or you would realise the weakness of your arguments.

Hey, smooth-brain. Did you know that there's a centuries spanning political movement consisting of millions of people and which is aimed at prioritizing respect for women's boundaries? You might have heard of it. FEMINISM!

Not only have I heard of feminism, I am a feminist a real feminists, which is why I have been a consistent opponent of Islamification. Most so called feminists today are a actually Cultural Marxist frauds. If you were really so smart you would remember that I have repeatedly spoke out to the superiority of western culture over Islamic, Hindu and Confusion cultures. Even at the time of the crusades Muslims were amazed by the freedom of Frankish (western) women. Arranged marriages were not the norm for the mass of the population in western societies either in the Middle Ages or the early modern period. And here's the kicker, arranged marriages don't work very well as a method of controlling biological inheritance, unless you keep women is a state of semi imprisonment like the Muslims do.

Humans are not just small gorillas. We have not evolved in a context where females are strictly limited to one partner at a time. This is why adult male humans produce so much sperm. The purpose of the overwhelming majority of that sperm is to hunt down and kill other men's sperm inside the woman's body. Modern hunter gather societies have often been influenced by neighbouring Agrarian Patriarchal societies. But for most of our time as a species there were only hunter gatherer societies and it was simply impossible to control women's sexuality in such circumstance.

But even in societies with arranged marriages for the mass of the population, the mothers usually had a considerable say in mate selection. That's why I asserted that overall it has been women's choices, not men that had the biggest effect on selection.

[ingliz]

@Rich

What makes you think the West is being 'Islamified'?

[Truth To Power]

The anthropological evidence for the exchanges of females in kinship networks is so overwhelming that I'm not even gonna bother refuting this.

So you agree that it did not resemble a property relationship. Good.

It's called a package-deal. You are not selling your daughter for money, you are selling her for alliances and future marriage opportunities.

So in fact, it's not a property-like relationship at all.

Though I would expect nothing more from someone who was born on the far end of the wrong side of the bell curve.

I'll put my IQ scores up against yours any time.

[Truth To Power]

@Rich

What makes you think the West is being 'Islamified'?

Would the rapid increase in Muslim population not count...?

[Truth To Power]

Misrepresenting your sexist portrayal of women as facts is also not an argument.

Denial ain't just a river in Africa.

[Pants-of-dog]

Witty little adages are also not an argument.

This is extremely poor debating.

[ingliz]

Would the rapid increase in Muslim population not count...?

No.

As of 1 January 2024, the population of the EU is around 449 million people. Some 25 million Muslims live in the 27 Member States of the European Union.

[Truth To Power]

No.

Oh, really? Why not? Are you perhaps unclear on the meaning of the word, "increase"?

As of 1 January 2024, the population of the EU is around 449 million people. Some 25 million Muslims live in the 27 Member States of the European Union.

And how does that compare to, say, 20 years ago, or 50 years ago? What about 20 years from now, or 50 years from now? Which member states have the highest Muslim populations, and how large are they?

You seem to be very anxious to avoid knowing such facts.

[ingliz]

@Truth To Power

The numbers are piddling.

I'd be more worried about the Christians trying to bring about the end of the world for religious reasons.

[Rich]

What makes you think the West is being 'Islamified'?

It is!

Since the second world war we've seen exponential increases in Muslim populations in Britain and host of other European countries. In Britain at least we also see three tier policing that is reinforcing and defending Islamification. I would note that when I first the coined the term Islamification, I wasn't aware of any one else using the term. It is gratifying to see the term entering the mainstream.

I'm not, nor have I ever been conservative. As child even when I still believed in the Jewish God, I didn't agree with him. I disagreed with Christian sexual morality even before I fully understood what sex was. A return to traditional Christian morality based around life long monogamy is not possible even if it was desirable. However the full effects of its demise should be analysed. The demise of traditional Christian morality has led to a massive rise in sexual inequality amongst men. It is actually women's sexual freedom that has led to the rise of the Andrew Tate's and such phenomena as the pick up artist guru.

[ingliz]

Poor @Rich is not getting enough so he whines about a piddling minority (5.57%) of the other in society.

Modern Western youth, a blizzard of 'snowflakes' drowning in self-pity. It's no wonder women are not falling at your feet.

It's not a good look.