/pnd/ - Politics, News, Debate

Male genitalia size, testosterone levels, and natural voice pitch directly correspond to a shift between one of roughly two kinds of behaviors in male simians. Males with larger genitals, higher testosterone, and deeper voice do not seek or have an instinctual preference for monogamous relationships, for exclusive mate access, or for territorial mating behaviors, or even for parentally beneficial traits in species where natural variation exists and females are NOT substantially weaker/have less power than males. They also tend to engage in orgy-type mating scenarios. They also prefer higher testosterone, more mature females. Males with smaller genitalia, smaller testicles, and lower testosterone in these species, such as chimpanzees, howler monkeys and humanoids, practice single-mate paring or harem collecting for exclusive mating access, preferentially mate with younger, sometimes much younger females, and are both territorial and parentally minded, with an almost fanatical dedication to their offspring. Some mixture of behaviors exist between these two extremes.

In species where females are substantially stronger or have eusocial behaviors towards members of their own genders, such as bonobos and matriarchal female human societies, Bonobo males remain attached to their mothers all their lives, following them through the forest and being dependent on them for protection in aggressive encounters with other males. As a result, the highest-ranking males of a bonobo community tend to be sons of important females. The same is also true of human societies run by women, although few such societies exist- the jewish community is preferential to the offspring of influencial and important females. Male bonobos also engage in homosexual mating practices, and homosexuality/bisexuality is well established as a more common trait of human males who are in societies dominated by women.

In species where females are substantially weaker than males, the predominant mating strategy for most species is for the highest testosterone males to assert territorialism, to practice harem gathering behaviors, and to spend substantial time deterring other males or fighting them. However, this only occurs in species which have natural resource limitations.

For species where resources are abundant and higher tier predators exist, such as gorillas, the behavior developed is social capitalization of male strength by males, with the highest testosterone males building packs of their species consisting of themselves, their females, and their offspring, along with occasionally some other males. To some degree these groups exhibit a mixture of the behaviors illustrated of the variation between simians of larger and smaller genitalia, and higher and lower testosterone, along with the behaviors claimed of territorial simian species. Namely, the dominant male will preferentially mate with reproductively mature females, sometimes the immature females mate with the subordinate males, and a number of other behaviors are demonstrated derivative of these.

Academic experts may disagree with my summarization, but i believe their contest with me is more of minor details or moral qualms about drawing such conclusions rather than any fundemental flaw in my assertion. Humans are 99.9998% genetically similar to most of these simeans. It is ethically and scientifically absurd to both claim that they are yet so differently natured to us that we are unlike them; but that we are also universally the same among all of the genetic subtypes of the human race- the african, european, asian, pacific approximate groupings- where the genetic distance is much lower but still, as an overall fraction of our genome, relatable in size. Either we are much more like other simeans than we wish to admit, or we, as phenotyped variants of h. sapien, are more distant to each other and naturally disparate in our own nature than we have been claiming.

I am not going to draw a conclusion about race and ethnicity in this dissertation. We are talking about sex and mating.

For simplicity, I will consider behaviors as belonging to one of three groupings: eusocial, monogamous, and dominant.

It is clear to see that in early anthrocene(past thousand years) human societies of europe, monogameous social norms were prevalent in societies where resource competition existed and territorially stable societies flourished. Infanticide, once common, was also eliminated, not as a product of these mating strategies but rather as a product of stable societies of long lived individuals mandating purely K-selective behaviors. Pedophilia, as we know it today, was also somewhat more common, with typical female ages at first mating as an average of all human societies being on the average of 16, but occasional marriages below menarche(although with rare consumation or successful pregnancies) and common marriage at menarch for these indicated societies. Viking and roman women married young, on average 12. In the few societies that have remained consistent in terms of their resource limitations far enough into the modern era for scientific observations to be gathered, such as in india, it is also apparent that penile insecurities and smaller male genitalia were the norm. Ancient norsemen were obsessed with penis size. The greeks did not simply create statues with small penises out of aesthetic taste, as they carved accurately every other detail, but likely because the average penis was smaller.

In africa and regions of the world where resources were prevalent and natural predator/societal conflict were the norm, such as the incans and in africa, some traits we associate with the dominant and some with the eusocial mating strategies dominanted. Matrilocal marriage was customary in Peru under the Inca monarchy. No strong conclusions about age of marriage could be drawn for africa, where purely territorial, domainant mating strategies were abundant, but among the aztecs the average age of marriage was 16, and the male 20. In serbia, in southern europe, where temperature extremes are more rare and predatory social conflict from foreign cultures such as turkey are and have been the norm for over a thousand years, the average penis size is nearly 8 inches.

As the modern era emerged(mid 1800s), with exponentially greater access to resources, mating opportunities, and labor requirements by industry, the reproductive behaviors of western societies shifted, slowly at first. But over the past 160 years, a number of things have happened seemingly uncorrelated but all associated with the shift towards the eusocial, r-selective mating strategies that all simians are capable of adapting to.

Firstly, feminism and women's sufferage, as a mechanism giving women equal power and resource access with men, emerged out of the victorian era. It initially arose as a moral concern over the absolute and arbitrary power that males had over their wives in edwardian britain and europe of the same era, and as a protest against the unequal prosecution by the law for the same crimes. In some cases, a woman could be put to death for a crime that would net the male a mere prison sentence of a few years. But eventually, the protest took on absurd causes like prohibition, which made a great deal of people upset.

Secondly, the age of consent was raised, sometimes considerably. In the united states, delaware, where it was 9 years of age, as well as other states, with ages of consent ranging from 12-16, the age of consent was raised, initially to 16, and then to 18. The same more or less for the rest of the western world, and then, through the political pressure of the west, the world entire. Along with this the moralization and social outrage over some mature males preferring immature females became a norm, but only after the 1960s. Even up until the mid 1970s the legal proliferation of pornographic material featuring minors was practiced in the united states, although, of course, it was an oddity no more common than the statistical distribution would suggest, and corresponding to the historical statistical probabilities regarding average recorded ages of marriage- at some 5-15% of males.

Thirdly, the laws governing alimony and the possession of the estate of a widow, initially protective of the rights of men and patriarchally oriented towards dynasties, shifted to benefit women, among other things legally which are of interest but not relevant to the argument being presented.

Fourthly, the average penis size grew, and continues to grow. Recent studies have indicated a trend of nearly a centimeter per decade of increased average penile size in the 2010s. The genitalia size, paradoxially, is shrinking with regards to testicles, but this trend may be explained readily by the proliferation of xenoestrogens due to plasticizers and estrogen-mimicing substances in the common diet from soy consumption, along with testicular atrophy due to chlorine exposure- among other factors. In societies where well-preserved foods, soy consumption, and plasticizers are not abundant, no such trend is recorded.

Fifthly, infanticide has become more commonplace. While infants as legally defined, being offspring already borne, has been outlawed in most societies, access to abortive procedures and medication has been normalized. This equates to a logical form of infanticide, where the reproductive gestation is terminated at a more optimal time.

Sixthly, monogamy has become depreciated for opportunistic mating behaviors such as the so-called "one night stand". Males increasingly refuse to engage into monogamous relationships and females increasingly indicate that they do not wish for them, at least not until later in life, where the resource benefits outweigh the mating opportunity cost.

Seventh, males have become less invested in offspring and their responsibilities to their offspring, and the social trend of a welfare state providing for offspring is now commonplace and a common strategy of females is to become welfare mothers.

Eighth, females have become more invested in exhibiting reproductive maturity in the form of breast agumentation and obsession with body shape, along with increased courtship towards high status males and males who exhibit greater sexual endowment.

Ninth, as r-selective mating benefits from increased genetic diversity for a number of reasons which will not be illustrated, it is also apparent that an increase in diversity mating, more commonly males to females outside of their own genetic pool, has become more normal.

Tenth, and perhaps most distressingly, the subset of males most biologically advantaged in a k-selective environment are either unable to mate or experience extreme mate competition. These males tend to be socially stable, offspring-oriented, introverted, territorial or anti-competitive, and exhibit smaller genitalia, preference for younger, immature or immature-appearing females, good parental instincts, and a desire for monogamy or exclusive harems. They also tend to present with less masculine features and higher pitched voices. When these males are reproductively successful, they tend to be found with younger wives, sometimes much younger.

Eleventh, the subset of males most r-selectively benefited are readily able to mate and experience no reproductively distressed. These males tened to be socially unstable, opportunity-oriented, extroverted, non-territorial(or territorial on behalf of groups of males, such as gangs), and exhibit larger genitalia, preference for sexually accessible females of high social status, have almost no parental instincts, and are unlikely to marry or exhibit control over females. They tend to present with more masculine features, wider faces, and lower pitched voices. When these males are reproductively successful, they tend to be found with wives of age close to their own.

Twelvth, the subset of females most biologically advantaged or preferred for k-selective reproduction, being those who are reproductively immature by biological variation or appearance or nature, and who exhibit other traits this paper has not sought to assert, are either unable to mate according to their preference or develop mental distress adapting to mating norms and social preference not to their instinctual preference. These females tend to be socially dependent, self-oriented, introverted, anti-competive, exhibit smaller secondary sexual traits such as breast size and higher pitched voices, and have less possessive instincts towards their offspring(where dominant eusocial females must be concerned with competitive infanticide, k-selective females do not), and a desire for monogamy or a harem of exclusive males in non-direct reproductive competition where they take turns or each mate in a limited capacity. When they are reproductively successful, they tend to be found with older, more wealthy husbands.

Thirteeth, the subset of females most advantaged for R-selective reproduction, being those who are either reproductively mature/supermaturated by biology, who tend to enter into menarche and sexual activity later than their peers, have greater reproductive success and comfort, and are able to mate according to their preference and maintain casual relationships without strong discomfort. They may exhibit some distress but do not typically express wishfulness for monogamous exclusivity. These females tend to be socially independent, group-oriented, extroverted, sexually competitive, and exhibit larger secondary sexual traits such as larger breasts, deeper voices, and are more possessive towards their offspring and much more vocal about protectiveness and prevention of predation on offspring or immature females by immature males. They tend to exhibit a reduced desire for monogamy, or are open/comfortable with the concept of sharing a high-value male with a select few or one other high value female, where they mate often and to great excess with their desired mate. When they are reprodutively successful, they tend to be found with younger, more dominant males.

Fourteenth, violence and gang activity over the centuries since the modern era began has long since become rote and social order has begun to decline as the enforcing body is increasingly the body which the rules presently benefit to the detriment of the needs of all. The average IQ level is declining due to trends likely linked but not significant from a reproductive strategy perspective. Humanity, across the planet, are becoming more violent, more stupid, and more likely to die young, when trends associated with the globalization of access to modern medicine, highly nutritious food, and birth control are subtracted.

-------–

While you may contest the assertions above, I believe you would rather criticize the tone of my writing, or make reference to implied conclusions I have not established. As I indicate them, while some trends are much more recent, the overall progression is from 1850-today in western society exclusively, and counterindicating social trends in other societies represent exceptions with local differences in resource and mate availability, as well as social norms, which counterindicate at least for now.

I will also not assert such behaviors and trends as universally exhibited. Young individual females and males near the age of consent will exhibit some of the preferences typecast by these hypotheses but will not typically conform to a stereotype until their preferences are molded by experience, and even then, changes will continue to manifest in accordance with oxytocin bonding and other phenomena.

In particular, young females are much like older females in preferentially seeking out high status, territorial, high testosterone males, even when this is disavangeous for them reproductively in terms of their phenotypical expression and mating strategy, purely because the natural instinct is, initially, and especially among low status females where conservation of status and resources are not important, to seek out the most reproductively fit mate with regards to sex, and reproductive fitness sexually is independent of reproductive fitness socially. Males and females naturally seek the most virile partners who have the highest sperm/egg counts and the healthiest genes, and the more endowed and fertile an individual is the more healthy their offspring are likely to be. In addition, an endowment or body build that is more attractive is more enjoyable sexually. Regardless, it is claimed to be a product of the overarching access/resource/opportunity trends hypothesized.

The purpose of this hypothesis is to establish the suggestion there has been a shift in which the illustrated trends are clearly correlatable with social changes and a probable decline in western civilization stability as a product.

Now, there are other consequences which are as unavoidable as they are timeless, which come as a consequence of this shift.

Eventually, the population will rise. If the population in the west is controlled with regards to reproduction internally, it will be increased by force via the integration of other populations, with visible, false motives of humanitarianism and global societal love, and with true motives of achieving the necessary replacement labor to sustain industry and the replacement talent to agument the innovation requirements of western industry, which in turn is required to sustain the welfare state. The welfare state as a total ecological cycle utilizing manpower, producing consumer goods, and deriving income from their activity, which is used to secure more manpower and produce more goods, is a self-sustaining paradigm which will not ultimately be stopped by philosophical challenges about environmental concerns or by anything but resource limitations. In fact, it will derive advantage from politically significant themes and will rebrand internally according to the customer's taste, while continuing to consume, produce, and integrate more.

Eventually, this will lead to resource conflicts, war, death, famine, destruction, and the regression to more primitive societal norms.

What shape they will ultimately take is not well understood or predictable. How to stop or control this trend is also not understood.

The question of who is responsible for whose offspring is, while economically and morally relevant, an oft overlooked discussion. eusocial females are less likely to assert that eusocial males have a definitive responsibility for their offspring, and will look instead to recruiting a monogamous secondary mate to provide, or will turn to society in general, where the monogamous males produce the most economic product, to provide for their offspring. Eusocial females are also somewhat less likely to complain if their mate cheats, as long as there is no social advantage from the activity. Virtue signalling and status-seeking behaviors set aside, there is no general, universal expectation of responsibility, and if there was one, it might counteract some of the trends indicated.

--------------------------

I present what i consider a reasonable and modest proposal, which Eusocial females and females who exhibit the behavior of secret out-mating, something also seen in other simians, will protest, but to which few males will see a challenge outside of their own insecurity over discovering their offspring is not their own.

First, that genetic testing of progeny to establish parental identity as a public matter of fact be mandatory.

Secondly, that the biological parent of a child is never free of the responsibility to provide for them, and can be taxed and even imprisoned and forced to work to pay for their offspring's welfare until their children reach the age of emancipation.

Thirdly, that only the offspring and wives of men who die in war, as law enforcement officers, as firefighters, and in other public service roles involving naturally dangerous occupations shall be mandatorially eligable for welfare and subsistence by the state in lieu of adoptive social practices, and only the offspring whose parents are not convicted of violent felonies and who are citizens of the state shall be eligible in any way for welfare by the state in leiu of adoptive social practices, with the exception that a violent individual may obtain absolution and welfare for their offspring through voluntary conscription into a natural dangerous occupation of necessity to the state, such as a forest fire fighter or soldier, and with the exception of offspring where both parents have deceased becoming the public ward.

Fourthly, that citizenship no longer be a birth right in any nation, but a right earned through public service, land and business ownership, and other pathways made available without prejudice or discrimination to all, where labored service and pro-social behaviors are mandatorially necessary for success.

What do you think of my proposal? is it fair to all?

In my opinion, as the author, if, at any rate, these proscriptions became the law,they would lead to vastly reduced infidelity, at least infidelity detrimental to k-selective mates, and it would drastically reduce the opportunistic immigration from more primitive societies which have no resources to contribute to wealthy western societies, without impacting immigration accessibility for individuals who merit and seek the opportunity. Some of the necessary laws required to accomplish this goal are already the norm in some western societies, and only america is truly vulnerable. But if this became the norm completely, it might result in some positive shift back to monogamous, stable societies, while preserving the advances in rights of women which have been achieved so far. I am not strongly optimistic about the long term trend. It would still be better to preserve our civilization for a few centuries more, even in the current state of affairs, rather than the risk of total collapse and a regression to primitive society.

I personally do not care and do not see any reason to debate the philosophical, political, and economic consequences of feminism.

But I could see where feminism would stand against my proposal, insofar that they are female supremacists, which is a problem outside the scope of this proposal.

While K-selective individuals are distressed and disadvantaged by the current trends, they would not, on the whole, be greater benefited by a primitive society. We are stronger together. The renaissance period of pseudo-feudelism under theocratic dynasties with tenuous enforcement of the rights of the majority and the early 19th century period of pseudo-fuedelism under robber baron oligarchic state structure with often contested enforcement of the rights of the citizenry share similar conflict stories, martrydom type events, but also enormous economic booms and population growth, and this despite a trend towards r-selective favorable conditions.

In the coming centuries the resources of space, more affordable accesss to industrially fabricated habitats to expand livable regions outside of arable lands and the rise of vertically integrated agriculture promise that the population density can be sustained even to double the current capacity once efficiency is improved. But if we cannot effectively allocate resources and welfare to generate useful, intellectual labor sources, as will absolutely be the case regardless the fantasies of irrational dystopia authors about a new economic strata, then we will inevitably fail. The nonsensical vision of oppressed minorities who are somehow clever and benefical for western civilization yet in a lower class by wealth is a product of socialist propaganda. There are not, nor have there ever been, purely wealth based social stratifications independent of merit and dynastic hereditism. The inevitability is that, quite on the contrary, it will be the most productive and domesticatable populations which are oppressed as a labor source by an elite that becomes ever more diversified as it seeks to integrate global wealth into the family tree. In my opinion, that's just the natural order of things. Yet, as long as parental responsibility is mandated, order will be retained, and in the moment it is not, regardless of reproductive preferences, order will collapse.

>>184569

That's stupid. Intelligence comes from the brain, which is part of the body. Stop babbling.

>>184543

Eugenics is the only way. With how much damage has been done over the decades of "Great Society" the only way to get back to a growing civilization is eugenics. Positive incentives for intelligence, negative ones for stupidity. This means stop giving stupid criminals free housing and conjugal visits, but just hang them and be done with it. Welfare moms get one child unless they can qualify as high IQ, otherwise all benefits cut off until they get sterilized. High IQ couples that have kids get tax breaks for having more, weighted towards having them young (in their 20s) to avoid the college/career trap.

But all of this is just fantasy without any political will. Right now everyone is caught up in the false dialectic of anti-white Marxism and based black civnats. Until the (((media))) can be taken down, Idiocracy will continue to grow.

Also, your assertion that R types like older women and K types younger is backwards. Young marriages in the past were largely as a way to secure a marriage, aka lock them both down together. In the Victorian Era average marriage ages were early 20s and that was also about when the average first child was. But R types have always gone after young women and always will; they simply don't discriminate and will mate with anything with a pulse. Subsaharan africa and primitive jungle tribes the world over (all highly R-selected) routinely "initiate" younger girls than civilized societies. Age of puberty is lower too across pretty much all dumber groups, and it often lowers in absence of a father. K strategy is delayed adulthood for more brain growth, because the brain matures very slowly while the body grows quickly.

>>184543

Good anon, you are doing what I'd like to call a camoflauged attack, quite honestly, I think that because of the context and the thought train of the chan, it seems like you're too out of place, but stuff like this is interesting to read irregardless.

If you want a serious tip, everytime someone has advanced knowledge, they should use it to infiltrate the normie sphere then attack LOUDLY, that means, you should aim to make sure everywhere they may be, they shall hear you, that's a shock tactic, even if it doesn't convince certain people whom your existence will be their detriment, it throws them into disarray to know that in the normie-sphere there's now this huge info that puts the enemies in a bad light.

Keep working.

>>184550

The first two proposals are excellent imo. The third will have to be discussed more.

>>184639

>That's stupid. Intelligence comes from the brain, which is part of the body. Stop babbling.

Do you have a proof for this?

Bump

>>184543

You should look into how communism aka marxism judaism is behind the feminism movement meaning the liberation and which allowed girls to be free these are the same who helped girls to get voting rights and so on. Not just due to transportation and access to phones and such, as it can sound like from your reading. The prominent leaders in the feminist movement were jewess women, thus marxists judaism backers and investors behind them. Sounds to me you researched some stuff but left out things you don't have knowledge of. But we keep evolving.

In chinese culture theres a saying about the human body the lower part is of earth, aka the animal. The higher part above the waist is of the heavens, the heart and mind and spirit. Meaning intellect.They both must be in balance. Right now the culture in west and world overall is imbalanced with the lower part of body obviously. Chinese culture knew about this since 3000 years ago at least. I suppose that knowledge came from the same area as the rest. Sumeria and so on.

>>184543

-Polygamy for men is a good thing. each men must be allowed to have as many women as he wants to.

-A man has no obligation (and must never seek) to please a woman. Women are the ones who must please men. Men are superior to women and can always live by themselves. Women can't. Therefore, all obligations are on their side, and not on men's side.

Men are born to be free and do whatever they want, with no obligations to anyone. Women are born to serve and obey men, and must be abandoned when they don't.

Men must have only rights and no duties. women must have only duties and no rights.

Any society that denies that is a failed society that is not worth saving and must burn to the ground.