Why do Normies always blame men for their lack of dating?
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,890
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
14 Sep 2017, 8:47 am
Aristophanes wrote:
Well, that's kind of the point: the entire concept of "alpha male" derived from that paper, the term didn't exist before then, and the author himself claims it's a complete mischaracterization, the quote I provided is the same author clarifying his paper. Does that quote sound anything like our concept of 'alpha male' today? Hell no, because 'alpha male' was built on a lie.
and what do you call the silverback gorilla male who mates with all females of his group? and the strongest lion who monopolizes all the females of his pride?
You are focusing too much on wolves while forgetting the rest of the mammalian species. Wolves are actually one of the few exceptions in nature.
The "strong male + harem" system exists in nature extensively, you don't watch Animal Planet obviously.
14 Sep 2017, 9:27 am
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
Well, that's kind of the point: the entire concept of "alpha male" derived from that paper, the term didn't exist before then, and the author himself claims it's a complete mischaracterization, the quote I provided is the same author clarifying his paper. Does that quote sound anything like our concept of 'alpha male' today? Hell no, because 'alpha male' was built on a lie.
and what do you call the silverback gorilla male who mates with all females of his group? and the strongest lion who monopolizes all the females of his pride?
You are focusing too much on wolves while forgetting the rest of the mammalian species. Wolves are actually one of the few exceptions in nature.
The "strong male + harem" system exists in nature extensively, you don't watch Animal Planet obviously.
And yet you're cherry picking yourself, focusing too much on silverbacks, who aren't even very close genetically to humans, not compared to chimps and bonobos, both of which are sexually promiscuous and have no sexual dominance hierarchy.
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,890
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
14 Sep 2017, 9:40 am
Aristophanes wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
Well, that's kind of the point: the entire concept of "alpha male" derived from that paper, the term didn't exist before then, and the author himself claims it's a complete mischaracterization, the quote I provided is the same author clarifying his paper. Does that quote sound anything like our concept of 'alpha male' today? Hell no, because 'alpha male' was built on a lie.
and what do you call the silverback gorilla male who mates with all females of his group? and the strongest lion who monopolizes all the females of his pride?
You are focusing too much on wolves while forgetting the rest of the mammalian species. Wolves are actually one of the few exceptions in nature.
The "strong male + harem" system exists in nature extensively, you don't watch Animal Planet obviously.
And yet you're cherry picking yourself, focusing too much on silverbacks, who aren't even very close genetically to humans, not compared to chimps and bonobos, both of which are sexually promiscuous and have no sexual dominance hierarchy.
Cherry picking? lol Polygyny exists in most mammalian species, it is the most common mating system among mammals and many bird species as well in nature (ie. fowl species).
And you're wrong about the Chimps, Common chimps do exihibit male dominance in mating.
http://www.chimpanzoo.org/african_notec ... er_10.html
ps: and btw gorillas are VERY close genetically to humans, go check it yourself. - not as much as chimps and bonobos but certainly much closer to us than wolves.
Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 14 Sep 2017, 9:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,890
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
14 Sep 2017, 10:10 am
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
Well, that's kind of the point: the entire concept of "alpha male" derived from that paper, the term didn't exist before then, and the author himself claims it's a complete mischaracterization, the quote I provided is the same author clarifying his paper. Does that quote sound anything like our concept of 'alpha male' today? Hell no, because 'alpha male' was built on a lie.
and what do you call the silverback gorilla male who mates with all females of his group? and the strongest lion who monopolizes all the females of his pride?
You are focusing too much on wolves while forgetting the rest of the mammalian species. Wolves are actually one of the few exceptions in nature.
The "strong male + harem" system exists in nature extensively, you don't watch Animal Planet obviously.
And yet you're cherry picking yourself, focusing too much on silverbacks, who aren't even very close genetically to humans, not compared to chimps and bonobos, both of which are sexually promiscuous and have no sexual dominance hierarchy.
Cherry picking? lol Polygyny exists in most mammalian species, it is the most common mating system among mammals and many bird species as well in nature (ie. fowl species).
And you're wrong about the Chimps, Common chimps do exihibit male dominance in mating.
http://www.chimpanzoo.org/african_notec ... er_10.html
ps: and btw gorillas are VERY close genetically to humans, go check it yourself. - not as much as chimps and bonobos but certainly much closer to us than wolves.
Scientific American - Bonobo Sex and Society
An excerpt:
Quote:
The bonding among female bonobos violates a fairly general rule, outlined by Harvard University anthropologist Richard W. Wrangham, that the sex that stays in the natal group develops the strongest mutual bonds. Bonding among male chimpanzees follows naturally because they remain in the community of their birth. The same is true for female kinship bonding in Old World monkeys, such as macaques and baboons, where males are the migratory sex.
Bonobos are unique in that the migratory sex, females, strongly bond with same-sex strangers later in life. In setting up an artificial sisterhood, bonobos can be said to be secondarily bonded. (Kinship bonds are said to be primary.) Although we now know how this happens--through the use of sexual contact and grooming--we do not yet know why bonobos and chimpanzees differ in this respect. The answer may lie in the different ecological environments of bonobos and chimpanzees--such as the abundance and quality of food in the forest. But it is uncertain if such explanations will suffice.
Bonobo society is, however, not only female-centered but also appears to be female-dominated. Bonobo specialists, while long suspecting such a reality, had been reluctant to make the controversial claim. But in 1992, at the 14th Congress of the International Primatological Society in Strasbourg, investigators of both captive and wild bonobos presented data that left little doubt about the issue.
Amy R. Parish of the University of California, Davis, reported on food competition in identical groups (one adult male and two adult females) of chimpanzees and bonobos at the Stuttgart Zoo. Honey was provided in a termite hill from which it could be extracted by dipping sticks into a small hole. As soon as honey was made available, the male chimpanzee would make a charging display through the enclosure and claim everything for himself. Only when his appetite was satisfied would he let the females fish for honey.
In the bonobo group, it was the females that approached the honey first. After having engaged in some GG rubbing, they would feed together, taking turns with virtually no competition between them. The male might make as many charging displays as he wanted; the females were not intimidated and ignored the commotion.
Observers at the Belgian animal park of Planckendael, which currently has the most naturalistic bonobo colony, reported similar findings. If a male bonobo tried to harass a female, all females would band together to chase him off. Because females appeared more successful in dominating males when they were together than on their own, their close association and frequent genital rubbing may represent an alliance. Females may bond so as to outcompete members of the individually stronger sex.
The fact that they manage to do so not only in captivity is evident from zoologist Takeshi Furuichis summary of the relation between the sexes at Wamba, where bonobos are enticed out of the forest with sugarcane. Males usually appeared at the feeding site first, but they surrendered preferred positions when the females appeared. It seemed that males appeared first not because they were dominant, but because they had to feed before the arrival of females, Furuichi reported at Strasbourg.
Bonobos are unique in that the migratory sex, females, strongly bond with same-sex strangers later in life. In setting up an artificial sisterhood, bonobos can be said to be secondarily bonded. (Kinship bonds are said to be primary.) Although we now know how this happens--through the use of sexual contact and grooming--we do not yet know why bonobos and chimpanzees differ in this respect. The answer may lie in the different ecological environments of bonobos and chimpanzees--such as the abundance and quality of food in the forest. But it is uncertain if such explanations will suffice.
Bonobo society is, however, not only female-centered but also appears to be female-dominated. Bonobo specialists, while long suspecting such a reality, had been reluctant to make the controversial claim. But in 1992, at the 14th Congress of the International Primatological Society in Strasbourg, investigators of both captive and wild bonobos presented data that left little doubt about the issue.
Amy R. Parish of the University of California, Davis, reported on food competition in identical groups (one adult male and two adult females) of chimpanzees and bonobos at the Stuttgart Zoo. Honey was provided in a termite hill from which it could be extracted by dipping sticks into a small hole. As soon as honey was made available, the male chimpanzee would make a charging display through the enclosure and claim everything for himself. Only when his appetite was satisfied would he let the females fish for honey.
In the bonobo group, it was the females that approached the honey first. After having engaged in some GG rubbing, they would feed together, taking turns with virtually no competition between them. The male might make as many charging displays as he wanted; the females were not intimidated and ignored the commotion.
Observers at the Belgian animal park of Planckendael, which currently has the most naturalistic bonobo colony, reported similar findings. If a male bonobo tried to harass a female, all females would band together to chase him off. Because females appeared more successful in dominating males when they were together than on their own, their close association and frequent genital rubbing may represent an alliance. Females may bond so as to outcompete members of the individually stronger sex.
The fact that they manage to do so not only in captivity is evident from zoologist Takeshi Furuichis summary of the relation between the sexes at Wamba, where bonobos are enticed out of the forest with sugarcane. Males usually appeared at the feeding site first, but they surrendered preferred positions when the females appeared. It seemed that males appeared first not because they were dominant, but because they had to feed before the arrival of females, Furuichi reported at Strasbourg.
Where's the alpha male? Where's the harem? Where's the 'hypergamy' when the females already have the power? Those are our closest animal relatives btw.
14 Sep 2017, 10:18 am
Really, I find that the whole point is, really.....is that we humans should be able to transcend biological instinct. This is the basis, really, of our "civilization."
We have moved beyond mere instinct.
In my experience, most people--especially when they get past a certain age, move beyond extolling merely the "Alpha" members of our species.
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,890
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
14 Sep 2017, 10:18 am
Aristophanes wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
Well, that's kind of the point: the entire concept of "alpha male" derived from that paper, the term didn't exist before then, and the author himself claims it's a complete mischaracterization, the quote I provided is the same author clarifying his paper. Does that quote sound anything like our concept of 'alpha male' today? Hell no, because 'alpha male' was built on a lie.
and what do you call the silverback gorilla male who mates with all females of his group? and the strongest lion who monopolizes all the females of his pride?
You are focusing too much on wolves while forgetting the rest of the mammalian species. Wolves are actually one of the few exceptions in nature.
The "strong male + harem" system exists in nature extensively, you don't watch Animal Planet obviously.
And yet you're cherry picking yourself, focusing too much on silverbacks, who aren't even very close genetically to humans, not compared to chimps and bonobos, both of which are sexually promiscuous and have no sexual dominance hierarchy.
Cherry picking? lol Polygyny exists in most mammalian species, it is the most common mating system among mammals and many bird species as well in nature (ie. fowl species).
And you're wrong about the Chimps, Common chimps do exihibit male dominance in mating.
http://www.chimpanzoo.org/african_notec ... er_10.html
ps: and btw gorillas are VERY close genetically to humans, go check it yourself. - not as much as chimps and bonobos but certainly much closer to us than wolves.
Scientific American - Bonobo Sex and Society
An excerpt:
Quote:
The bonding among female bonobos violates a fairly general rule, outlined by Harvard University anthropologist Richard W. Wrangham, that the sex that stays in the natal group develops the strongest mutual bonds. Bonding among male chimpanzees follows naturally because they remain in the community of their birth. The same is true for female kinship bonding in Old World monkeys, such as macaques and baboons, where males are the migratory sex.
Bonobos are unique in that the migratory sex, females, strongly bond with same-sex strangers later in life. In setting up an artificial sisterhood, bonobos can be said to be secondarily bonded. (Kinship bonds are said to be primary.) Although we now know how this happens--through the use of sexual contact and grooming--we do not yet know why bonobos and chimpanzees differ in this respect. The answer may lie in the different ecological environments of bonobos and chimpanzees--such as the abundance and quality of food in the forest. But it is uncertain if such explanations will suffice.
Bonobo society is, however, not only female-centered but also appears to be female-dominated. Bonobo specialists, while long suspecting such a reality, had been reluctant to make the controversial claim. But in 1992, at the 14th Congress of the International Primatological Society in Strasbourg, investigators of both captive and wild bonobos presented data that left little doubt about the issue.
Amy R. Parish of the University of California, Davis, reported on food competition in identical groups (one adult male and two adult females) of chimpanzees and bonobos at the Stuttgart Zoo. Honey was provided in a termite hill from which it could be extracted by dipping sticks into a small hole. As soon as honey was made available, the male chimpanzee would make a charging display through the enclosure and claim everything for himself. Only when his appetite was satisfied would he let the females fish for honey.
In the bonobo group, it was the females that approached the honey first. After having engaged in some GG rubbing, they would feed together, taking turns with virtually no competition between them. The male might make as many charging displays as he wanted; the females were not intimidated and ignored the commotion.
Observers at the Belgian animal park of Planckendael, which currently has the most naturalistic bonobo colony, reported similar findings. If a male bonobo tried to harass a female, all females would band together to chase him off. Because females appeared more successful in dominating males when they were together than on their own, their close association and frequent genital rubbing may represent an alliance. Females may bond so as to outcompete members of the individually stronger sex.
The fact that they manage to do so not only in captivity is evident from zoologist Takeshi Furuichis summary of the relation between the sexes at Wamba, where bonobos are enticed out of the forest with sugarcane. Males usually appeared at the feeding site first, but they surrendered preferred positions when the females appeared. It seemed that males appeared first not because they were dominant, but because they had to feed before the arrival of females, Furuichi reported at Strasbourg.
Bonobos are unique in that the migratory sex, females, strongly bond with same-sex strangers later in life. In setting up an artificial sisterhood, bonobos can be said to be secondarily bonded. (Kinship bonds are said to be primary.) Although we now know how this happens--through the use of sexual contact and grooming--we do not yet know why bonobos and chimpanzees differ in this respect. The answer may lie in the different ecological environments of bonobos and chimpanzees--such as the abundance and quality of food in the forest. But it is uncertain if such explanations will suffice.
Bonobo society is, however, not only female-centered but also appears to be female-dominated. Bonobo specialists, while long suspecting such a reality, had been reluctant to make the controversial claim. But in 1992, at the 14th Congress of the International Primatological Society in Strasbourg, investigators of both captive and wild bonobos presented data that left little doubt about the issue.
Amy R. Parish of the University of California, Davis, reported on food competition in identical groups (one adult male and two adult females) of chimpanzees and bonobos at the Stuttgart Zoo. Honey was provided in a termite hill from which it could be extracted by dipping sticks into a small hole. As soon as honey was made available, the male chimpanzee would make a charging display through the enclosure and claim everything for himself. Only when his appetite was satisfied would he let the females fish for honey.
In the bonobo group, it was the females that approached the honey first. After having engaged in some GG rubbing, they would feed together, taking turns with virtually no competition between them. The male might make as many charging displays as he wanted; the females were not intimidated and ignored the commotion.
Observers at the Belgian animal park of Planckendael, which currently has the most naturalistic bonobo colony, reported similar findings. If a male bonobo tried to harass a female, all females would band together to chase him off. Because females appeared more successful in dominating males when they were together than on their own, their close association and frequent genital rubbing may represent an alliance. Females may bond so as to outcompete members of the individually stronger sex.
The fact that they manage to do so not only in captivity is evident from zoologist Takeshi Furuichis summary of the relation between the sexes at Wamba, where bonobos are enticed out of the forest with sugarcane. Males usually appeared at the feeding site first, but they surrendered preferred positions when the females appeared. It seemed that males appeared first not because they were dominant, but because they had to feed before the arrival of females, Furuichi reported at Strasbourg.
Where's the alpha male? Where's the harem? Where's the 'hypergamy' when the females already have the power? Those are our closest animal relatives btw.
Lol it's so typical for those who deny alpha male in nature, you pick the bonobos only as the example.
The common chimps are equally genetically close to us, so bonobos aren't exclusively the "closest" species.
We share with chimps and bonobos 99% of DNA, while 98% with gorillas.
You should also dig into the evolution of bonobos and see why, unlike most primates, they became matriarchal (hint: drought, disappearance of gorillas in their area).
Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 14 Sep 2017, 10:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,890
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
14 Sep 2017, 10:28 am
It would be too stupid to deny that humans historically are by far more violent and warring, as a species, than bonobos.
Humans are historically more chimps like than bonono like, when it comes to male dominance and violence.
Also (mild) polygyny is common among the present primitive tribes, and far more common than polyandry. There are whole papers on this.
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,890
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
14 Sep 2017, 10:35 am
"When polygamous marriages occur in premodern societies, they are overwhelmingly likely to involve polygyny (one husband, multiple wives) as opposed to polyandry (one wife, multiple husbands). Overall, of the 1,231 cultures in the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, 84.6 percent are classified as polygynous, 15.1 percent as monogamous, and 0.3 percent as polyandrous. ".
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/da ... lygamous-0
14 Sep 2017, 10:38 am
Look Boo, I'm not arguing that these concepts don't apply to humans, they do, I'm arguing they aren't 'natural' they're cultural as evidenced in our species with such cultures as the Mosuo and Navajo, that work in a completely different fashion than the red pill community claims is nature. That's because nature is a mix of strategies employed by different animals to survive. Making claims of this is 'natural' that is not 'natural', thereby implying an instinct all animals share is false, even inside species there is regional variation in practice and behavior. Dating in America is nothing like dating in Europe or Asia, each culture has it's own definition of attractiveness, and thus what's valuable and what's not. Again, read about the Mosuo, they expel the prototypical 'alpha male' because he's seen as a threat to their community: disruptive, violent, and unproductive. Again, cultural, not natural, and again they're the oldest continuous culture in existence, they've survived longer than Egypt, every Chinese dynasty, and far longer than any modern country-- if they're 'unnatural' perhaps we all should be, seeing as how they've been winning this 'society' game for over 3000 years.
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,890
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
14 Sep 2017, 10:40 am
kraftiekortie wrote:
Really, I find that the whole point is, really.....is that we humans should be able to transcend biological instinct. This is the basis, really, of our "civilization."
We have moved beyond mere instinct.
In my experience, most people--especially when they get past a certain age, move beyond extolling merely the "Alpha" members of our species.
We have moved beyond mere instinct.
In my experience, most people--especially when they get past a certain age, move beyond extolling merely the "Alpha" members of our species.
We should transcend true, but the "humans were like bonobo" is a false narrative; common among feminist narrative but it's... scientifically and historically untrue, it is just a PC wishful thought.
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,890
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
14 Sep 2017, 10:42 am
Aristophanes wrote:
Look Boo, I'm not arguing that these concepts don't apply to humans, they do, I'm arguing they aren't 'natural' they're cultural as evidenced in our species with such cultures as the Mosuo and Navajo, that work in a completely different fashion than the red pill community claims is nature. That's because nature is a mix of strategies employed by different animals to survive. Making claims of this is 'natural' that is not 'natural', thereby implying an instinct all animals share is false, even inside species there is regional variation in practice and behavior. Dating in America is nothing like dating in Europe or Asia, each culture has it's own definition of attractiveness, and thus what's valuable and what's not. Again, read about the Mosuo, they expel the prototypical 'alpha male' because he's seen as a threat to their community: disruptive, violent, and unproductive. Again, cultural, not natural, and again they're the oldest continuous culture in existence, they've survived longer than Egypt, every Chinese dynasty, and far longer than any modern country-- if they're 'unnatural' perhaps we all should be, seeing as how they've been winning this 'society' game for over 3000 years.
If it wasn't natural in humans then explain this: why, in average, men are taller and stronger than females?
(in nature, true monogamous animals don't have this size gap).
And wht the taller man is still seen more desired?
Sexual dimorphism in humans is a strong biological evidence of our polygynous past throughout our evolution.
14 Sep 2017, 10:51 am
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
Look Boo, I'm not arguing that these concepts don't apply to humans, they do, I'm arguing they aren't 'natural' they're cultural as evidenced in our species with such cultures as the Mosuo and Navajo, that work in a completely different fashion than the red pill community claims is nature. That's because nature is a mix of strategies employed by different animals to survive. Making claims of this is 'natural' that is not 'natural', thereby implying an instinct all animals share is false, even inside species there is regional variation in practice and behavior. Dating in America is nothing like dating in Europe or Asia, each culture has it's own definition of attractiveness, and thus what's valuable and what's not. Again, read about the Mosuo, they expel the prototypical 'alpha male' because he's seen as a threat to their community: disruptive, violent, and unproductive. Again, cultural, not natural, and again they're the oldest continuous culture in existence, they've survived longer than Egypt, every Chinese dynasty, and far longer than any modern country-- if they're 'unnatural' perhaps we all should be, seeing as how they've been winning this 'society' game for over 3000 years.
If it wasn't natural in humans then explain this: why men are taller and stronger than females?
(in nature, true monogamous animals don't have this size gap).
Who claimed humans were monogamous? Oh that's right, again, society. i.e. social construct.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Lack of network |
24 Apr 2024, 12:46 pm |
| My lack of understanding jokes |
18 Apr 2024, 9:03 pm |
| Feeling lack of support navigating financial aid |
03 Apr 2024, 6:38 pm |
| Fire Emblem's lack of memorable villains |
27 Feb 2024, 7:35 pm |
