KanyeT

Member
Mar 15, 2020
253
397
A very rich man having a large polygynous harem means that many of the women are effectively out of the gene pool and of those women who do have offspring, they will be only half-diverse--half of that population's next generation will be "roughly" 50% identical (well, probably closer to 25% individually, because the father gives 50% of his genes, but 50% of their alleles will come from one source).
The majority of men have not reproduced throughout human history, this is not unusual for people to be left out of the gene pool. You're acting like one single man mates with an entire society - no, half of the population's next generation will not be 50% identical. A tiny fraction of it will be because there is more than one man in a specific society able to provide for a child. The priority is always the survival of the offspring first and foremost.

In cultures where the survival strategy is based on the whole community working together to raise children, the diversity is strongly encouraged, evolutionarily. The situation you present above is a relatively recent development in human history, especially before agrarian societies.
But those cultures are not the norm, nor the majority. People have always worked together in societies to raise children, it doesn't mean they share resources or sperm. You just said above, agreed upon by reputable anthropologists, historians, and evolutionary psychologists, that the majority of civilisations throughout human history prior to 1,000 years ago were polygynous polygamies. So why are you now arguing that my polygonous situation is a relatively recent development?

You keep using that phrase...
Biologically wired (or biologically hard-wired) implies something we are born with and cannot change. Very little of human behavior is biologically wired--the vast majority is due to software rather than hardware, the behaviors we have modeled to us in childhood, the norms we were raised with. The same with biological imperatives--I don't see anthropologists or evolutionary psychologists using that term. A quick search for the phrase shows that it appears in a lot of sources that are not scientific journals. I would not trust Business Insider, Harvard Business Review and the like to be reliable sources for scientific information.
No, it means that humans are biologically rewarded for certain behaviours for the purpose of an evolutionary advantage to the point where it becomes natural instinct. We are biologically wired to pursue sex, for example. Or to pursue fertile women for reproduction. Or to fear death or social exclusion. Our sexual attractions are biologically wried based on what was evolutionarily advantageous for us as a species.

The tabula rasa theory is long since disproven and ridiculous pseudo-science. The majority of human behaviour is driven by genetic influences and biological urges, not by societal enforcement.

You have characterized non-monogamy (promiscuity) as unnatural. You declared that both men and women are turned off by promiscuity, making a general statement about men and women, and not qualifying it as some men and some women.

As I said above, anthropologists, historians, and evolutionary psychologists mark that modern monogamy is only about a thousand years old. Promiscuity did not just become prominent in the last 50 years, it was the norm for most of our human history.
No, I haven't, and it shows how much you have been paying attention. Polyamory (promiscuity) is unnatural, and it was not the norm in human history. Sexual exclusivity in both monogamy and polygamy is natural due to being evolutionary advantageous as I explained previously.

Both men and women are turned off by promiscuity. Requiring that I clarify a general statement like this with "some" is just uncharitable ridiculousness. If I say that dogs enjoy going on walks, it is just outright dishonest to hold it against me as all dogs enjoy going on walks in an attempt to counter my argument with "but not all!".

From my perspective, you presented your own cultural biases and presented them as norms for the species as a whole. My information is not limited to my own perspective, I have included research and publications by people in the field who study such things as a career, and whose papers are vigorously peer reviewed.
From my perspective, you can't follow the conversation and keep misunderstanding my position. I very clearly explained why my positions are evolutionarily advantageous and would have been practised behaviour throughout human history - it has nothing to do with current cultural practices. I haven't seen any research or publications from you - are hyperlinks or attachments not working for me or something? It's not like peer-reviewed means anything in science these days anyway.

Also, I did not claim to not understand, I said I didn't "grok it," a concept from Stranger in a Strange land (and common with the real world Church of All Worlds), meaning "To understand profoundly and intuitively (emphatically)."
I was referring to this post by yourself, where you claim to have vague understandings and guesses on a surface level.
 
Last edited:

KanyeT

Member
Mar 15, 2020
253
397
Why are people so cringe, who wants to know about either of you guys delusions.
I think it is interesting discussing things like this. It was broached by the topic of whether any of the girls in the game were virgins, and everyone failed to understand the appeal, so it's like not like it was just an out-of-left-field diversion. Plus you get to learn things about topics and other people's perspectives on issues, etc.

I also tried, but not with patience to do rhymes again.

Since I did with boobies, maybe some could do with asses.
No one failed, this thread has always been about titty-talk, it's just that there are just multiple conversations going on at once.
 

armond

Well-Known Member
Apr 26, 2020
1,198
3,821
I think it is interesting discussing things like this. It was broached by the topic of whether any of the girls in the game were virgins, and everyone failed to understand the appeal, so it's like not like it was just an out-of-left-field diversion. Plus you get to learn things about topics and other people's perspectives on issues, etc.



No one failed, this thread has always been about titty-talk, it's just that there are just multiple conversations going on at once.
If you play the game you can discern for yourself who may or may not be a virgin, also mass replying with ever expanding length makes you look delusional, especially when the replies are dime store common sense it makes them seem like long winded non replies (y)
 
  • Like
Reactions: crustlord12

camube

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2022
1,191
1,088
I'm currently playing this and just got past Riley's scene where MC was dominant.

I'd like to ask, anyone have any game recommendations where the MC is dominant like that in scenes?
I know Pale Carnation is like that. But I discovered Ripples through Pale Carnations.
 

misfolk

Active Member
Jan 22, 2021
794
1,196
I'm currently playing this and just got past Riley's scene where MC was dominant.

I'd like to ask, anyone have any game recommendations where the MC is dominant like that in scenes?
I know Pale Carnation is like that. But I discovered Ripples through Pale Carnations.
The Assistant
 
  • Like
Reactions: camube

Pitrik

Conversation Conqueror
Donor
Oct 11, 2018
7,542
29,115
I'm currently playing this and just got past Riley's scene where MC was dominant.

I'd like to ask, anyone have any game recommendations where the MC is dominant like that in scenes?
I know Pale Carnation is like that. But I discovered Ripples through Pale Carnations.
Oppai odyssey, there is a full dom or sub route with a girl
 
  • Like
Reactions: camube

akselx

Active Member
Mar 29, 2020
760
1,232
I tried to pull the thread back into titty-talk but I clearly failed
I also tried, but not with patience to do rhymes again.
Since I did with boobies, maybe some could do with asses.
No one failed, this thread has always been about titty-talk, it's just that there are just multiple conversations going on at once.
Asses are evolutionary superior to titties, the science is settled on this point. It's a most rigorously researched topic in academia, multiple peer-reviewed studies. I won't be providing any of them though, just trust me.
 

armond

Well-Known Member
Apr 26, 2020
1,198
3,821
Asses are evolutionary superior to titties, the science is settled on this point. It's a most rigorously researched topic in academia, multiple peer-reviewed studies. I won't be providing any of them though, just trust me.
Yeah, well I don't give a shit:sneaky:
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: KanyeT and R P

armond

Well-Known Member
Apr 26, 2020
1,198
3,821
I have seen that statement from anthropological sources. The idea that cleavage is reminiscent of buttocks.
The problem with these arguments for ass is that they assume the present is the past as well as being an appeal to an external authority without listing the value or shortcomings of either while completely ignoring the existence of pussy or a pretty face. In other words, barely arguments at all, just rhetoric.
 
  • Thinking Face
Reactions: R P

Dragon59

Conversation Conqueror
Apr 24, 2020
6,699
10,947
The problem with these arguments for ass is that they assume the present is the past as well as being an appeal to an external authority without listing the value or shortcomings of either while completely ignoring the existence of pussy or a pretty face. In other words, barely arguments at all, just rhetoric.
Well, we do have the paleolithic "Venus" figures. Emphasis on buttocks and breasts in most of them, with little effort put into face or in some cases, genitals. Reminds me how in some cultures, a woman with wide hips and especially one that has proved she can bear children, were prized above young virgin waifs.

Admittedly, it is hard to divorce our biases in archeology. Viking digs find a burial in armor--for generations thought to be male. Then a biologist looks at the hips and says, that's a woman. Now we're having to accommodate the fact that their were warrior women and possibly transmen in the Viking era.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: R P

UnoriginalUserName

Engaged Member
Sep 3, 2017
3,717
13,823
The problem with these arguments for ass is that they assume the present is the past as well as being an appeal to an external authority without listing the value or shortcomings of either while completely ignoring the existence of pussy or a pretty face. In other words, barely arguments at all, just rhetoric.
I'm not sure where you live, but I don't see many women walking around with their pussy lips flapping in the wind on a daily basis around here so it's hard to use that as an initial attraction thing. Faces are generally the second or third thing a guy notices about a girl. If she's facing you it's tits, then face, if she's facing away it's ass then face. If it's a side profile it's either ass or tits depending on your preference, then face.
 

armond

Well-Known Member
Apr 26, 2020
1,198
3,821
I'm not sure where you live, but I don't see many women walking around with their pussy lips flapping in the wind on a daily basis around here so it's hard to use that as an initial attraction thing. Faces are generally the second or third thing a guy notices about a girl. If she's facing you it's tits, then face, if she's facing away it's ass then face. If it's a side profile it's either ass or tits depending on your preference, then face.
X-ray glasses:cool:
 
4.80 star(s) 296 Votes