Do girls find it extra hot when big guys bully small guys?

Post Reply New Topic

I can buy, that is have hope the majority of women outgrow tolerating men who bully them or anyone else as unfit for families. Social Darwinism, instincts rendered obsolete by evolution from lower life forms into humans, is an excuse by those who know how to quote it, otherwise it is pure selfishness glorified by teaching the losers to blame themselves for not being ruthless enough to bully someone else into losing in their place under a Machiavellian pecking order which suppresses rebellion by forcing those below to compete against each other rather than gang up on and defeat the unjust power of their oppressors.
We have the free will (Heisenberg indeterminacy of electron transitions in the chemical reactions in the brain manifesting consciousness) and the responsibility it implies to be more human than to live by pecking orders.

I'd imagine that if this does appeal to some women, it does so because it is a display of social and perhaps physical dominance.

A man can be an Alpha and not be an a$$hole. Bullying and harassment is a-hole behaviour and hell no it's not hot. It's despicable and disgusting. If some one has to assert power over another to establish dominance they aren't really powerful, just pathetic.

Humans may be animals but we have certain capabilities most other animals do not, or are simply not as developed. Because humans are, supposedly, more 'evolved'. To say we are all simply slaves to our animalistic makeup is damn insulting.

I hope this question was meant as a joke. The answer is no.

What is an Alpha? Women on this site usually deny the existence of this term so I would like to see your definition.

Of what I remember from school.... physically aggressive bullies were not the most popular guys among girls. The ones who were REALLY popular (and you can easily tell that by the frequency of girls talking to them and giggling with them, it's so extremely easy to tell) were the handsome guys, I remember this Robert Pattinson lookalike classmate who was very popular, and in other years there was this handsome+brilliant classmate; both were not the violent types but I recall sometimes they verbally got sarcastic at me in front of their fangirls - that would be called verbal bullying no?

When others put people down below them who are vulnerable, to assert their social position, I find them gross. At the same time, those people have their own problems. Everyone is vulnerable to it at some point.

That's weird. An Alpha is the socially dominate being. How they reach that status can vary and has more variations when you look at species and gender. Some do get to the Alpha status through physical or psychological aggression, but it's not a requirement when you're talking about humans. I would say it's more to do with personality traits that mark an alpha type. Your alpha tends to be the first person to step up if something needs to be done. On the outside they will show determination and confidence with their decisions and what they do.

There is a bit of a trouble when one is put in a position of power. Lets say you have an alpha individual who generally has good conduct. After being in that position and via the peer pressure of the followers, there could be a decline in their conduct because although they are 'lead', they are susceptible to acting in ways they think may please the ones granting them the power. They can also get cocky. Absolute power can corrupt absolutely. When it comes to working towards a goal or in a group, it tends to be better to have Alpha personalities that can work in conjugation together, rather than them competing over supremacy.

What's weird? Their denial of obvious things? You got to be used to it already.

The human species, as a whole, was extremely an Alpha-male driven and patriarchal species, even more than other cousin primates. https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-r ... ve-success , Christianity which had somehow standardized the monogamous marriage (and even influenced other religions like Hinduism and Islam in that) is a recent thing in the humankind timeline you know.

But yeah, let them keep denying that the Alpha man is a thing in human species, whatever floats their boat ha.

Very interesting study but it describes early farming communities which are - in terms of our species evolution - not much less recent than Christianity - and didn't last very long as in ancient Egypt monogamy was already a social norm.
Older data of hunting gathering communities also does not show such patterns.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3083418/
What the article you linked describes was a very unusual time, thus so interesting.

The graph from the article shows it was a great, worldwide anomaly:

Left: reproducing males, right: reproducing females.

...What? No.

I think people put way too much stock into their oversimplified ideas of human evolutionary behavior. Maybe we should stop trying to be armchair anthropologists.

The Pharaohs had harems.

IMHO the folks who find atavistic behaviors attractive, should be given a wide berth for a similar reason that one would avoid a big pile of feces.

I think women who are bullies might find that attractive...but in general probably not.

It's weird because I don't understand what their reasoning would be for making such a claim. Something around thinking that people are equal, perhaps. We are essentially equal as beings, but socially contributions and roles are different.

Monogamy has existed a long time and along side polygamy, its hard to say just when it started up. Actually its hard to say that human are truly monogamous anyway. If we do take a mate, and then that mate dies, we do then tend to seek another one. And of course we do things like 'break up" and seek others. There's many theories as to what the reason was to proliferation of monogamy but I don't think I would necessarily credit that to Christianity. Christianity is just another patriarchal religion that was essentially put together by borrowing aspects form other already existing religions and re branding them.

In ancient Egypt as magz said, they had standardized two person marriage. Pharaohs were in essence Gods, and thus not held to the same norms as the people. They weren't considered to be human.

Trying to say whether monogamy is 'natural' or not is somewhat of a moot point. As humans do many things that wouldn't really be considered natural. Our evolution has pushed us past many of our base natural occurrences. Which is why the OP's insinuation that we are all stuck at our base instincts is insulting. Personally as for as relationship structure goes, as long as everyone is on the same page an it works for you, do whatever floats your boat.

There is a particular thought that Matriarchy once reigned before the Patriarch took over. There are also scientists that say that early men and women were actually rather equal. Whether it was Patriarch, matriarch, or equal basic pecking orders would be around - thus your Alphas would still be in play. Having a alpha male around around doesn't necessarily mean he will be 'leader as there would be a female that sports even more alpha characteristics. She would take the lead by 'out Alpha-ing' him. lol Or in some cases like with grey wolves, they'd form a power couple.

In any case, what is valued and needed has changed so that the Alpha isn't necessarily going to be the more desirable mate choice. Especially if they are, as the OP has described, an a$$hole.

The ones who date the "alpha male" A-holes are the ones least likely to be able to have any sort of coversation with.