Large testicles? Well, your mother must be promiscuous

LOL, just sloppy sex right?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think his thesis may be the most disgusting thing I've ever heard of.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Worse than sloppy seconds, is the famed fucked-up fifths.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm nonplussed as to the correct mod behaviour here.

 

Roll with it.

It IS valid biological, mating and sexual selection discussion.

 

except everything that Asguard said.

 

What I'm surprised at is the classic way in which the sexual tradeoffs occur. I'm not sure if I should or can ask this or not, but are they so classic - so predictable - because of the critical role of reproductive traits in fitness, or because sex, as a binary character (male/female, Happeh being excluded), is such a marked, finite categorical factor that it necessarily imposes strong, predictable sex-specific fitness strategies?

Or we could talk about sloppy seconds. It's either/or.

 

Well..the first part would keep this thread in the Biology subforum...

The second bit would make it a firm candidate for the cesspool.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What I find interesting is that the traits that attracted female humans to male humans for millions of years are now turning against them.
People with the amount of agression and rage that served well in tribal warfare, hunting and other survival skills are now being suppressed in modern society and the virile young men have scant few places to express that in a healthy way - but they still must find a way to the surface.
Those repressed urges turn in on themselves and the men who were great providers are now finding themselves in prison, in gangs, in places that suvert their ability to provide.

Who are spousal abusers? Testosterone filled, agressive males with built up rage and suppressed frustrations.

 

Maybe. Though you're just as likely to find them on the police force. I imagine the rulers of all those 3rd world shit holes and their strong men are well served by their testosterone.

Do you think Stalin had a big pair?

I'd like to see something supporting this. It's too... pop-psych.

 

Modern rules of engagement and modern technology are making them obsolete as well.
A 5 foot tall, slight woman can be a cop just as much, and just as effectively, as a burly hulk of a man.

Modern world.

I think Stalin likely had a pair of bowling balls in his trousers.

So would I - or denying it.
The thought just hit me and I'm wondering if there is any validity to it at all.
It rings true in my experience, but I fully acknowledge that my experience is limited.

Anyone have anything "professional" to offer to this idea?

 

So do you think only violent pathologies emerge on this basis, or could it be any abnormal behavioural type or subtype?

 

That's not what I meant.
It's that we have wonderful little niches for our violent, testosterone addled brutes. It's dealing with other, violent, testosterone addled brutes.

Also, modern rules of engagement seem to be losing us wars. We'll throw 'em out the window as soon as we're fighting something other than primitive people in mudhuts (or mudhut dwellers armed by someone not so primitive). I'd argue that World War II was largely fought and won by men with big balls who ignored civilian casualties.

Is Pakistan or Iran the modern world?

Despots have big balls, then?
What about Napolean?

I don't. It's certainly a good hypothesis that warrants further investigation.

 

Hard to select contrasts, though. We're all living in the same society, overall. Testosterone counts and social disorders in mountain men vs metrosexuals?

 

Most people are not cops or firemen and do not have a constructive way to espress their agression.
Most people end up in normal jobs.

I don't know if there is a correlation between spousal abuse and people with "excess" testosterone that is not going to "good" use, but I do know there are correlations between spousal abuse and dissatisfaction with work/life.
Of course it wouldn't explain all cases of spousal abuse - that would be a ridiculous notion.

Stalin was a brute and street thug who came into power through murder and force.
Napoleon was an intelligent man and brilliant strategist.
There is a world of difference.

Pakistan and Iran are being thrust into the modern world as we speak.

I think it could manifest itself in many ways, depending on the individual circumstances - just like anything else.

If a person has rage, and that rage can not be expressed, it will turn inside and explode later.
When people institute boxing gyms in high crime areas, the crime invariably goes down.
When people institute nigt baskeball leagues in high crime areas, the crime invariably goes down.

These things aren't just keeping the "bad kids" busy, it is giving kids and young men the opportunity to express their aggression in a healthy way.
It gives them a constructive activity that burns off testosterone.

Take an agressive kid with a tendency towards fits of rage and restrain him in a small room.
What do you think will happen?
I think anything left in that room will be broken and the kid just may injure himself.

Take the same kid and put him on a football team.
He will calm down.

I think it's no coincidence that we are seeing a drop in healthy physical activity in children and teens while we are seeing a rise in school violence.

 

It has barely been a blip in time (in evolutionary standards) since we have began pulling away from these traits that were almost exclusively selected for over millions of years.
Taking that into consideration, while I tend to shy away from discussions about human "instinct" because it is so difficult to draw a distinction between instinct and learned behavior, I think it could very well help explain why so many women are attracted to the aggressive, abusive, dominating male that is so plainly bad for them.

You see stupid, little girls hanging over testosterone gorillas and making excuses for why they abuse them and drawing away from men who treat them respectfully and have a promising future (which our modern standards state should be the best provider for them and their offspring).
Why? Because women are attracted to the same traits they have been attracted to for millions of years, it's just that our current standards of civilization are rendering those skills obsolete and even punishing men for having them.

 

True.

No longer will I suppress my biological urges. The Dragonships sail tonight! Let the shores of Massachusetts tremble!

 

But if the physiological feedback exerts itself in non-violent ways, this suggests it isn't poor outflow of integrated violent behaviour, but generalized biofeedback.

 

LOL...those are 24 words pretending to be a sentence. (whoosh) that was the sound of that going over my head.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What I mean is: if you're restrained societally from violence, but you have some kind of biological predilection for violence, then that violence should probably emerge in sporadic extreme violent behaviour. But if the sporadic behaviour isn't necessarily violent - say you suddenly paint a vase of flowers or engineer a xylophone - then maybe it isn't actually ingrained (fitness-related) violent behaviour that's being restrained. Maybe it's just crowding or something.