Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Roosh V, Pro-Rape Pick Up Artist, Announces Worldwide 'Tribal Meetings'

Idris2002 said:
From irf520's deranged nonsense:

"Genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did. The obvious conclusion from this is that a few top men had multiple wives, while the bottom 60% had no mating prospects at all."

What genetic research would this be, then? Because I've not heard this one before, ever, and I've been knocking around physical anthropology on and off over the years.

Edit: ah, just saw bi0boy's post. I take it this R.Baumeister is not a reliable source then (or are the "cultural marxists" in conspiracy against him?)
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm a rubbish cultural marxist but.. that statistic that says "Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men" that's really interesting I reckon. Counterintuitive at 1st but apparently .. not wrong.

Ghengis Khan and a couple of other 'alphas' like him have probably got a lot to do with it but - our DNA does seem to support the claim that "throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced."

Here's a science bit, with lots of genetics in that I don't know how to read but it supports the general assertion:
"the observed TMRCA ratio rF/M = 2)" . .. "Overall, our results support the hypothesis that we are descended from males who were highly successful in terms of reproductive output in a highly male-male competitive context, while females were exposed to a much lower level of female-female competition.. "
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.6231.pdf
& here's Baumeister's whole talk.
Denis Dutton
 
Last edited:
Greebo said:
No, it's the difference between what people like the idea of and what people like to experience.

eg. I might like the idea of giving you a bloody nose, but dislike the damage it would probably do to my knuckles, not to mention the mess caused.
Click to expand...

Wear gloves
 
Not sure if return of the kings is just a massive piss taking exercise and scam.
Because you cant take stuff like defcock seriously.
Or he actually belives this shit.

Feels like alf garnet a satire that too many people were prepared to take a face value:hmm:
 
bimble said:
Maybe I'm a rubbish cultural marxist but.. that statistic that says "Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men" that's really interesting I reckon. Counterintuitive at 1st but apparently .. not wrong.

Ghengis Khan and a couple of other 'alphas' like him have probably got a lot to do with it but - our DNA does seem to support the claim that "throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced."

Here's a science bit, with lots of genetics in that I don't know how to read but it supports the general assertion:
"the observed TMRCA ratio rF/M = 2)" . .. "Overall, our results support the hypothesis that we are descended from males who were highly successful in terms of reproductive output in a highly male-male competitive context, while females were exposed to a much lower level of female-female competition.. "
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.6231.pdf
& here's Baumeister's whole talk.
Denis Dutton
Click to expand...
yeh you may be a rubbish cultural marxist but it's imo hard to take as gospel, as you seem to, something which has been cited in four articles, including one written by favre. the 80%/40% claim may be right. but i wouldn't rush into acceptance off the back of a couple of things like this.
 
phildwyer said:
It's widely practiced in every Muslim country I've visited. It's almost the norm in many.
Click to expand...
Not safely.

As an Indian gay man told Wayne Sleep when he asked about the situation (with a view to moving to Mumbai with his boyfriend): Most people will tolerate homosexuality as long as they don't see it. You have to quickly learn when you're safe to be gay and when you're not.
 
Pickman's model said:
yeh you may be a rubbish cultural marxist but it's imo hard to take as gospel, as you seem to, something which has been cited in four articles, including one written by favre. the 80%/40% claim may be right. but i wouldn't rush into acceptance off the back of a couple of things like this.
Click to expand...
Nope, I was just saying it's interesting. The genetics is one side of it (and something I don't have a clue about) but I think it would be hard for anyone to argue that polygyny (ie. some men having multiple wives and others having none at all) hasn't been a massive part of human history - and still is common in places that didn't get christianised.

"Research done at the University of Wisconsin found that, of 1231 societies listed, 186 are monogamous, 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and four had polyandry. However, in many societies, taking on more than one wife is beyond the means of most people, because they do not have enough money to support that large of a family..'
The Big Question: What's the history of polygamy, and how serious a

&"“It’s not unexpected,” says Dmitri Petrov, an evolutionary geneticist at Stanford University in California. “Polygamy is something you would expect to find.” Petrov and his colleagues uncovered the same genetic pattern in fruit flies."Polygamy left its mark on the human genome

But anyway, none of this 'helps' the MRAs, if anything it just goes to show that 'beta's have never had it so good.
 
Last edited:
bimble said:
Nope, I was just saying it's interesting. The genetics is one side of it (and something I don't have a clue about) but I think it would be hard for anyone to argue that polygyny (ie. some men having multiple wives and others having none at all) hasn't been a massive part of human history - and still is common in places that didn't get christianised.

"Research done at the University of Wisconsin found that, of 1231 societies listed, 186 are monogamous, 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and four had polyandry. However, in many societies, taking on more than one wife is beyond the means of most people, because they do not have enough money to support that large of a family..'
The Big Question: What's the history of polygamy, and how serious a

&"“It’s not unexpected,” says Dmitri Petrov, an evolutionary geneticist at Stanford University in California. “Polygamy is something you would expect to find.” Petrov and his colleagues uncovered the same genetic pattern in fruit flies."Polygamy left its mark on the human genome
Click to expand...
i would be very interested to know how genetics managez to tell how people were married
 
Pickman's model said:
perhaps while you regain your poise it would be good for you to say how geneticists can determine whether one's forebears were married. or just cohabiting.
Click to expand...
The link between the genetic findings (that we have about twice as many female forbears as male ones) can only be explained by polygyny , right? Whether official (marriage-based) or just practical, on average throughout our history some men have had several babymothers whilst other men had none at all.
 
Last edited:
bimble said:
The link between the genetic findings (that we have about twice as many female forbears as male ones) can only be explained by polygyny , right? Whether official (marriage-based) or just practical, on average throughout out history some men have had several babymothers whilst other men had none at all.
Click to expand...
these would be the genetic findings you link to above where you didn't even read the name of the author. i ask again: how does a marriage ceremony become reflected in one's genes?
 
Pickman's model said:
these would be the genetic findings you link to above where you didn't even read the name of the author. i ask again: how does a marriage ceremony become reflected in one's genes?
Click to expand...
It's not about marriage ceremonies its about procreation; the DNA stuff is a pretty good indicator that the history of humans to a large extent involves some men having access to lots of sex whilst others got none at all. Which is exactly what people like Dwyer & Roosh, seem so irate about, as if it's something new that feminism / the modern world has done them, when in fact the opposite is true.
 
bimble said:
It's not about marriage ceremonies its about procreation; the DNA stuff is a pretty good indicator that the history of humans to a large extent involves some men having access to lots of sex whilst others got none at all. Which is exactly what people like Dwyer & Roosh, seem so irate about, as if it's something new that feminism / the modern world has done them, when in fact the opposite is true.
Click to expand...
yes. but you went on about marriage above. are you now saying you were wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pickman's model
George v's time is up
Replies
3
Views
649
tim
tim
cupid_stunt
Massive worldwide IT outage, hitting banks, airlines, supermarkets, broadcasters, etc. [19th July 2024]
15 16 17 18 19
Replies
568
Views
19K
tommers
tommers
B
Internet archive attacked, supposedly by pro-Palestine hackers
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Elpenor
Elpenor
krtek a houby
JD Vance's time is up
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
166
Views
8K
two sheds
two sheds
tim
Lula's time is up.
Replies
3
Views
783
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
Back
Top Bottom