DODONA: Human Biodiversity Discussion Forum - Male examples preferred in physical anthropology

« Male examples preferred in physical anthropology »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
May 21, 2013, 5:45pm

DODONA: Human Biodiversity Discussion Forum :: Human Biodiversity :: Physical Anthropology :: Male examples preferred in physical anthropology

Page 1 of 10 » Jump to page Go

Author

Topic: Male examples preferred in physical anthropology (Read 3,375 times)

Agrippa
God

member is offline

[avatar]

Progressive Collectivist

Joined: Jan 2004
Gender: Male

Posts: 3,288
Location: Asgard

Male examples preferred in physical anthropology
« Thread Started on Sept 13, 2005, 1:19pm »

I answered to a post which aked why "male examples dominate" if its about representing Göta types (classic Nordid) and if thats correlated with Homoerotic tendencies. Something the individual formerly named human2 "asked" me too in another thread, therefore I re-post my answer to the question about "male dominance on plates and in threads":

I should begin with the basics: Racial differences are strongest in males between 20-40 most of the time, not in children, not in old people, not in females usually. Basically because general human traits influence them more like a certain paedomorphic appeal or age related processes.
Furthermore many plates and statistics were made with military conscripts, so in a young age and male again obviously.

Another point is, that selection is most important for males if its about progressive features, females are, generally speaking, the preserving element, males the expanding, you can even see that in most DNA research done until now, male groups expanded and often took local women. The male is the main force in competition as long as the females are attractive (a condition which can be reached in different ways f.e. by elongation-elegance or infantile appeal) healthy, faithful, dedicated, fertile and intelligent, thats enough for them but not always for males, they are more selected for other personality traits and physical features.
So finally, the generations of young males compete in group selection which was a major force in later human evolution (I just recommend to read Howard Bloom after reading Dawkins, (Bloom is Jewish) I dont like all his moral implications at the end obviously, but his book "Global Brain" is a MUST READ!)

Furthermore, in the past many people argued that because Homosexuality was "suppressed" in the past, people had psychological problems and that it might have lead even to an increase of homosexual behaviour, both is utter nonsense.
But now, because Homosexuality is omnipresent, males, especially young males which grew up in this new "sexually free" environment think even more about it and show ridiculous and negative tendencies by trying to dissociate themselves from Homosexuality. A good example would be an average American male speaking about "how gay this movie is", though the movie is about heterosexual love or friendship, probably even if this person is gay himself whats the persiflage of a persiflage. Just think about how an English aristocratic behaviour would have been seen 200 years ago, in a time homosexuality was "suppressed" and now, in a primitive pop-culture which is sexualised and homosexuality is omnipresent.
People can't even use the word "love" without thinking about sex oftentimes, they have no other idea about love. Or such stupid questions come up, "are the Iranian Ayatollahs gay because they cover their women", they can't even think beyond their sexual ideas...
They dont understand that patriarchal and group identity must not be homosexual, in fact are less than their own hedonistic culture.
Nowadays a rather primitive muscle type is the ideal for many in the Americanised popculture, and fine and aristocratic manners and behaviour are being considered "gay" by the most primitive, though the homosexuals if they act like those of the typical subculture are just shrill and not fine...

Its the same with classic art, male bodies are nowadays oftentimes seen sexualised, though that wasnt necessarily the case in the past and that was much healthier. Aesthetic must not be sexualised nor the view on human bodies. If you look at a panther which might be very beautiful and aesthetic, you dont really want to have sex with him either but thats what Homoerotic would imply. *lol*
Furthermore if I see a perfect male individual I think how great his features are and how valuable his genes, that has nothing to do with "Homoerotic" thoughts. Even more important, beauty both in males and females can be related, to say its totally unimportant how a male looks means to lose the next generation in certain cases.
And as I said, later group selection worked with young-middle aged male groups, they are the shield and sword of the group and the expansive element, their features determine the success of the group, the success of the female is mainly to "produce and preserve" such a male group. So if looking at progressive types means to see the most efficient individuals. Attractiveness is secondary but of great importance, because it determines reproductive, social and diplomatic success partly too and is related to good balanced features especially in males.
The problem with sexually attractive females is they can be that for many reasons, as I said, they can be sexually attractive for males because of elongation-elegance, voluptuous, voluptuous-grossly or very child-like, infantile appeal. Those things or some of them work in most males and oftentimes distort their objective view. In fact, from a racial perspective, only females which can produce progressive and efficient males should be preferred, but obviously, primitive sex drives work different sometimes. In some traditonal societies that was known, a female was the bearer of future sons for the group's strength and that was valued.
I must say I'm not free from that primitive drives too obviously, paedomorphic features can be very appealing, but does that change their status from a more objective point of view, if valuing versatile-progressive features? Not really.
Finally you can find attractive females in almost every race with the most primitive exceptions probably (pure Australids f.e.), but if looking at a race, thats finally not the point, the attractiveness must be combined with progressive features, not just using primitive one-sided mechanisms. F.e. if females would get huger and huger breasts, that would lead to degeneration, because that would, IF TOO EXTREME, lead to a lack of competitive fitness females need too - f.e. if they have to help in fights, work on the field, run for their life, save their children etc.
So such things shouldnt distort the view on a racial type too much, though attractiveness is, as I said, of great importance too, its not the no. 1 quality finally and for sure not the only important one - just think of dwarfish, very weak and stupid-retarded variants which would just be chosen because of their infantile appeal...

You can see that quite often, males are usually much more objective if judging other males or unattractive women than judging attractive women no matter for what reason they consider it attractive (different options as being described above). Therefore and for the most typical features being mainly visible in males and for the other reasons I mentioned males were primarily chosen.

« Last Edit: Sept 13, 2005, 1:55pm by Agrippa »