In 1986 a group of behavioral ecologists embarked on a re-study of the Hadza of northern Tanzania. Aware that hunting was the main source of protein, they began with the classic premise of optimal foraging theory. They predicted that men would plan their hunts so as to maximize the amount of meat they brought back to camp, consistent with acceptable risk-taking. But the researchers were surprised to discover how inefficient the hunters were. A Hadza hunter could expect a full month of failures for every successful kill. This was not because game was hard to come by, but because the hunters held out for the biggest prey they could take - creatures like the sleek, elusive, and marvelously fleshy eland. Men tracked these imposing beasts for days, even though the same effort devoted to lesser prey - rock hyraxes or guinea fowl - would yield higher returns.
Whenever the researchers could persuade the hunters to lower their sights, the Hadza invariably came out ahead in terms of protein and calories earned for effort expended. Self-inflicted inefficiency was the first surprise. The second was discovering that after a month of unsuccessful hunts, when a Hadza hunter did kill something big, he retained only a fraction of the meat for his own family. A hunter who killed an eland kept only 19 percent of the enormous 350-kilogram carcass for his own wife and children. The vast majority of it was shared with other group members who spontaneously appeared "to help" eat it. Only if a hunter repeatedly failed and was forced to resort to hunting small game did his family get to keep the entire portion.
Well, such is the price of success, one might argue. An eland is too much meat for one family. But the Hadza climate is very dry. Sliced meat quickly develops a crusty rind and could easily be stored, or traded as jerky. Yet this does not happen. As is typical of hunter-gatherers, Hadza hunters neither brag about success nor attempt to claim meat as personal property. Instead, they tolerate a system in which the families of failed hunters - sometimes including families of men who have not killed prey in anyone's memory - can end up with the most meat.
According to the Hadza ethic, the more a hunter obtains, the more he gives away. This is a fairly general pattern among hunter-gatherers. From each according to his means, to everyone else. Had evolutionary storytelling come full circle, back to group selection? Were men storing up credit for another day, against an unlucky stint when the hunter would have nothing, while another, luckier, group member might have meat to reciprocate? Was meat so rich and succulent, so desired and a public good, that no man could afford to retain exclusive access? Or were men choosing to hunt larger prey because by killing a creature with mythical status some of the animal's charisma rubbed off on the hunter? This is when one of them, Kristen Hawkes, started to wonder if large game - meat that a man would have to give away - might not be worth more to a man in terms of prestige than as food in the mouths of his children.
According to Hawkes's "show-off" hypothesis, it was reputation that hunters were maximizing, not protein. Not only would other men respect him more, but women wowed by his prowess and intrigued by the prospect of gifts of meat might grant him sexual favors. What looked like parental effort was more nearly reproductive effort, as hunters exchanged food for sex in a time-honored performance characteristic of every primate in which males hunt. That "women like meat" was the standard !Kung explanation for why a particularly poor hunter remains a bachelor and has no prospects of ever being anything but celibate.
How typical are Hadza show-offs? Not known. However, a recent survey of the shopping habits of 167 British couples was eerily consistent with Hawke's view of male foragers: "showing off" took priority over economy. Even when men have the same amount of shopping experience as women, husbands and boyfriends shop less economically. Seventy-three percent of the time they chose different brand names than their wives, almost always more expensive ones. Men spent 10 percent more on shampoo, 6 percent more on butter, 5 percent more on coffee. Men apparently find it hard to resist the brand names and occasional big -ticket items - the thirty-dollar bottle of burgundy that magically materializes in the shopping cart. Male shoppers are more tantalized than women by the prospect of showing off with the "grand gesture."
Economic surveys from developing countries as far afield and as culturally different as India, Guatemala, and Ghana reveal that the nutritional level of children in a family does not increase in direct proportion to paternal income. Only increasing women's income has a direct effect. The show-off hypothesis is not only consistent with the man who stops off at a pub for a pint with his buddies while the kids are hungry at home, but with actual statistics from the United States Department of Health and Human Services concerning the large number of men who are more amendable to making car payments than paying child support.
...
Among hunter gatherers men are the main source of protein. But this does not mean that wives of the best hunters receive the most meat. Often, as in the case of the Ache or the Hadza, meat goes to the group at large, donated by fathers more interested in "showing off" than providing for their children. Data from the Ache hint at incentives for doing so: the best hunters reportedly have the most love affairs. Furthermore, in some of these groups the reason that the offspring of the best hunters are better fed is not because they obtain more meat from their fathers, but because the best hunters manage to marry the most enterprising gatherers.
It was not so much that Darwin and several generations of anthropologists had been on the wrong track. Rather, there were more tracks than initially assumed. When anthropologist Frank Marlowe conducted yet another study of the Hadza, he found that even when men "showed off" by bagging the most prestigious game and thereby provisioned the camp at large, more meat somehow reached children the hunters regarded as their own than reached their stepchildren. Marlowe concluded that provisioning by men was at least partly "parenting effort," albeit not always single-minded and dedicated as many mothers might hope. To varying degrees, fathers seek to provision their own and show off. Fortunately, for mothers, fathers are not the only providers mothers depend on.
There is a proverb African parents dust off when a son comes of age and sets out to find a wife: "First find yourself a good mother." By "good" they don't mean having a fine character. Nor are they thinking about heritable traits that a particularly beautiful or healthy woman might pass on to progeny. By "good" these tipsters have in mind a mother with numerous hard-working and well-connected relatives. It is quintessentially good advice for a cooperative breeder.
Mother Nature: A History of Mothers, Infants, and Natural Selection. Blaffer Hrdy, p. 228-230, 268-269.
THE EXCERPT BELOW HAS TO DO WITH PARENTAL EFFECTS, SPECIFICALLY IN RELATION TO SPEAKING STYLE AND ACCENT.
In the Nurture Assumption Judith Rich Harris correctly points out that genetically inherited traits have been given short shrift by social psychologists in their explanations of how children develop. At the same time, however, Harris underestimates - although she never entirely discounts - the extent of parentally mediated effects. ("Parents matter less than you think and peers matter more," the book promises.) What she leaves out is the extent to which input from parents, especially from mothers, influences the developing individual as he or she begins to negotiate his or her place in the world. Demographic profiles bottom-heavy with young, and social institutions of developing nations in the twentieth century with there schools and gangs, mean that this world is largely inhabited by peers, but this has not always been so.
It is the individual child or teenager who is the active agent in this transaction. Yet this young person's phenotype is already very much shaped by what parents and kin have done. In earlier human environments, the assistance of kin would continue to be very relevant. A young person's entire reproductive future would depend upon what group members (mostly kin) could and would provide.
The mother infant relationship has already factored into it a great deal of relevant input from the surrounding world, including how much support the mother can expect from her mate and kin around her. Depending on whether we are talking about a matrilocal or a patrilocal society, either the mother's or the father's status and kin ties affected the status of the child. For example, status of kin might determine such a major life circumstance as whether or not he or she remained in that group or migrated out of it.
To support her argument that peers (not parents) socialize children, Harris cites case studies from two ends of the social spectrum. She asks us to consider the son of Polish immigrants who learns to speak idiomatic, unaccented English just like his peers, and the son of a British baronet who spends his first eight years being tended by governesses with a variety of accents, then goes to preparatory school, and from there on to Eton. In spite of having virtually no contact with his father, she notes, the boy learns to speak and act just like him, providing the young man "his membership card for belonging to the upper class."
BARON
(That's Walt Kaneakua And His Wife Eda. Walt Was A Student Of My Father's.)
In an example closer to home, when my sister went to live in west Texas, her son picked up a strong twang - essential for a manly identity in that part of the world. However, my nieces, - who went to the same schools, with peers from the same background - continued to talk just like their mother, with only the faintest trace of a texas accent. I assume this was because speaking without a drawl seemed more refined, which would be a desirable trait for a young lady. between their natal homes and their peers, the children were active agents, consciously and unconsciously deciding whom to emulate.
In all these examples, parental effects (which include children's perceptions of how others treat their parents) are critically important. This would have been even more true in small foraging communities. In worlds where it would be uncommon in the extreme for children to find themselves in large classes of same-age peers, and where technology and culture changed at an infinitesimally slow pace, whether one was an orphan or the son of a skillful hunter, related to no one or related to many, would shape that child's life choices. From the perspective of an infant in humanity's environment of evolutionary relevance, there was only one really meaningful question to ask about nurture - would it be forthcoming? "Will I be protected and provisioned for, or not?"
Mother Nature: A History of Mothers, Infants, and Natural Selection. Blaffer Hrdy, p. 514-515.
TEENAGE GIRLS HAVING SEX, TEENAGE MOTHERS, BLACC GIRLS, ESPECIALLY, READ THE PARAGRAPHS BELOW, PARTICULARLY THE ONES TOWARD THE END OF THE EXCERPT. TEENAGE GIRLS, YOUR HAVING CHILDREN AT A TIME WHEN YOUR BRAIN IS NOT FULLY DEVELOPED AND WHEN YOU'RE NOT MATURE ENOUGH TO TAKE ON THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF CHILDBEARING AND CHILD-REARING. BLACC GIRLS, SOME OF THE PARAGRAPHS BELOW APPLY TO THE SINGLE-PARENT, ABSENT FATHER HOUSEHOLDS THAT YOU ARE/WERE RAISED IN. THIS ENVIRONMENT MAY EXPLAIN WHY MANY OF YOUR ARE PSYCHOS (HAVING ONLY ONE ADULT AROUND TO RAISE YOU ALONG WITH THE STRESS THAT ACCOMPANIES THIS CAN LEAD TO MENTAL INSTABILITY IN THE CHILD (YOU), JUST AS RAISING A CHILD BY YOURSELF (WITHOUT THE FATHER'S HELP) ALONG WITH THE STRESS THAT ACCOMPANIES THIS CAN LEAD TO MENTAL INSTABILITY WITHIN YOURSELF (YOU)). WHAT? DOUBLE WHAMMY, PIMP!
BIG BUCKS NO WHAMMY!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/what-makes-mothers-kill-their-children/2014/09/27/f599f0b4-4018-11e4-b03f-de718edeb92f_story.html?utm_term=.4b224fc0b3ae
He'll Do It For You! The Lower Status Male Primate Will Kill The Babies For You!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/what-makes-mothers-kill-their-children/2014/09/27/f599f0b4-4018-11e4-b03f-de718edeb92f_story.html?utm_term=.4b224fc0b3ae
In an interview and in her book “Mother Nature,” Hrdy said that infanticide is extraordinarily rare among primates, whose offspring are among nature’s most costly to raise because of their long path to maturity. It is more common among other mammals, such as lions, that cull their litters.
But nature, over eons, has instilled hard calculations in primates and humans, too: A mother faced with inadequate resources to ensure survival of herself, the child or other offspring might feel compelled to abandon or kill it.
Hrdy’s work also suggests, paradoxically, that those pressures may be greatest in patriarchal cultures where a woman’s role as mother is idealized and she is under intense pressure to give birth to children and nurture them with self-denying devotion.
...
In practice, the most common reasons for infanticide include disability, illegitimacy, lack of resources and cultural preferences for males. When twins were born among the Inuit, for example, the indigenous Arctic people sent one off on an ice floe because providing for two was too daunting, Resnik said. Hrdy cites a letter from a Roman soldier to his pregnant wife in the first century BCE with some blunt instructions: “If it is a boy keep it, if a girl discard it.”
Kill 'Em If You Can't Afford 'Em And Support 'Em. Kill The Babies If They Takin' Away From YO Social Life And Economic Well Being!
This Is What Happens When A Female Experiences Too Much STRESS In Childhood And Adulthood (As A Mother). She Harms Her Child/Children. (THIS IS THE MAIN REASON I'D NEVER HAVE A CHILD WITH A BLACC GIRL. THEY COME FROM BROKEN FAMILIES, HAVE BROKEN GENES, AND BROKEN DREAMS (That I SOLD Them).)
MOE NIGGRA CRAZINESS (A PRODUCT OF A MOTHER WITH POOR (MENTALLY UNSTABLE) GENES AND A SINGLE MOTHER HOUSEHOLD).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ3vraDWfr0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li4bcOkRB6M
YANG CAN COOK! Cook 'Em If You Cain't Afford 'Em And Support 'Em! Cook 'Em If They Constantly Cryin'! (KA "COOKY" YANG) Bake 'Em If You Broke!
BURY 'EM IF YOU CAIN'T BUY 'EM NUTTIN'!
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-grandaughter-death-20170606-story.html
Stab 'Em If They Stupid And Stubborn!
http://www.towleroad.com/2014/04/dutro/
If The Pilipina Get Sum G00D Dicc And Get Put In Her Place (Verbally And Physically Subdued) She'll Do Anything, Including Killin' Her Kids! But There's More To This Story! She Couldn't Afford The Boy! See Below.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-grandaughter-death-20170606-story.html
Stab 'Em If They Stupid And Stubborn!
http://www.towleroad.com/2014/04/dutro/
If The Pilipina Get Sum G00D Dicc And Get Put In Her Place (Verbally And Physically Subdued) She'll Do Anything, Including Killin' Her Kids! But There's More To This Story! She Couldn't Afford The Boy! See Below.
Even the few cases where biological parents kill their genetic children can be explained by Daly and Wilson's notion of "discriminative parental solicitude" They
point out that all parents have limited resources to invest in their
children. Their task is to maximize their reproductive success - not by
maximizing the number of children but by maximizing the number of
grandchildren. From this strictly Darwinian perspective, any
resources invested in children who are not likely to survive to sexual
maturity or find mates and reproduce themselves are entirely wasted.
Thus, parents are far more likely to neglect, abuse, and kill their
biological children who are deformed, handicapped, ill, or even
physically unattractive and to shift their parental investment of
limited resources toward those children with more promising reproductive
prospects. As uncomfortable as we may be with such a conclusion, the truth appears to be that parents do favor some of their children over others, even among their own genetic children, to say nothing about stepchildren to whom they are not genetically related, and they overwhelmingly favor those who are intelligent, beautiful, healthy, and sociable.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201101/why-are-stepparents-more-likely-kill-their-children
Cut 'Em Out The Cunt!
The Caption, Which I Accidentally Cropped Out, Read Something Along The Lines Of "She Was Going To Abort This Child." I'll Scan It Again And Include The Caption So That You Can See It And Read It! OK, I'm Having Trouble Uploading It, So I'll Just Write It Out. Here It Is: "THIS IPO MOTHER HAD JUST GIVEN BIRTH TO A THIRD CHILD, A GIRL, THAT SHE DID NOT WANT, CONSIDERS ABANDONING, THEN CHANGES HER MIND." - STEVE HRDY HARDON
Why do children love their parents?
At first glance, this question may appear absurd. Of course children love their parents; it is only natural, but why?
If
you really think about it, there is absolutely no evolutionary
psychological reason why children should love and care for their
parents. Some people (usually parents themselves) have suggested to us
that parents will be more motivated to invest in children who love them
back. But this is not true; from an evolutionary psychological
perspective, parents have to love their children, whether the children love them back or not, in order to motivate their parental investment. And, as Daly and Wilson's work on discriminative parental solicitude shows, parents
are motivated to invest not necessarily in the children who love them
the most, but in those who have the greatest potential to attain higher
reproductive success themselves (more attractive, more intelligent,
healthier children, or boys if the parents are wealthy, girls if they
are poor, etc.). If parents with limited resources have two children,
one an intelligent, physically attractive, and healthy child who hates
them, and the other a handicapped, unattractive, and sickly child who loves them, the cold evolutionary logic dictates that the parents invest in the former, not the latter. So the children do not really have to love their parents.
This
is especially true for adult children. While the parents are still
young, they can potentially produce further offspring with whom the
children share half their genes. So it might make sense for the children
to invest in and take care of their parents, so that they can produce
more siblings. But once the parents are past the reproductive age, this
is no longer possible. So it makes no evolutionary psychological sense
for adult children to take care of their elderly parents.
Yet
the overwhelming evidence from most human societies shows that children
do love their parents, and this is a theoretical puzzle for
evolutionary psychology - although probably only for evolutionary psychology.
"FOOL ME FOOL...GO ON AND FOOL ME!" - White Girl, Leanne
PON DE TRIVER
 |
| One Of The Greatest, If Not The Greatest Mind In The History Of Evolutionary Biology Got With A Nigga (A Caribbean Sista) And Had A Nigga (Multiple Niggas)! God Dam Nigger Lover! (...Trivers proposed that families roil with conflict because parents share no genes with each other and only half of their genes with children, who unless they are identical twins also have divergent genetic interests...) |
"If You Breed Within The Same Race There's Less Potential For Familial Conflict And Turmoil Because You, Your Mating Partner, And Offspring Share More Genes In Common." - MC Breed
Replying to
The spouse has muuuuuch less genes in common than the child who has 50%
Unless not too much has been invested in the child and it's easier and less costly to start over.
Gruesome topic? Yep. But evolution doesn't care
By the standards of most mammalian life histories, all apes take a long time to mature to breeding age. Humans, however, are off the scale...Within the age range possible for their species, however, individuals mature at different times. In general, better-nourished human females reach menarche sooner, conceive earlier, and reach full body size sooner. A chimp in a productive territory blessed with supportive and influential kin (Flo's eldest daughter, Fifi, comes to mind) reaches menarche as early as eight, several years before other females in her community do. In the 1970s, nutritionist Rose Frisch confirmed nineteenth-century suspicions that women resembled apes and other mammals in this respect.
With reproductive fat beginning to accumulate, some of the fat cells secrete the hormone leptin. Soon, every ninety minutes the girl's hypothalamus will release regular pulses of gonadotropin-releasing hormone. These pulses are the critical event in puberty, stimulating the pituitary gland to secrete hormones addressed to long-dormant ovarian follicles--- follicle-stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone, which essentially tell this egg-incubating organ to switch on.
But the first menstrual cycles in humans and other apes have a special twist. Whether females mature early or late, cycling begins long before pregnancy is possible. In apes, this period of adolescent subfertility lasts anywhere from six months to three years, protecting an adolescent who is sexually active from conceiving. In some species (chimpanzees and bonobos come to mind), adolescent females are sexually very active indeed.
A female chimpanzee, for example, may reach menarche at eight. But it will be several years before her sexual swellings (as a result of rising estrogen levels in the middle of her cycle) are full-sized, and grown males pay attention and mating begins in earnest. But even then, a female chimpanzee may copulate on the order of 3,600 times during successive subfertile cycles before she conceives for the first time, around age fourteen, and gives birth.
An adolescent's sexual swellings are especially conspicuous. Young females use them like "diplomatic passports" that permit safe passage through hostile territories. This way the wandering female can check out competitors and local resources in foreign communities while she decides where to eventually settle to breed. In the meantime, young females are free to explore and to continue growing.
By fifteen, a chimpanzee female has already borne her first baby and attained fully body size. From then on, she is far more fertile than younger females. Furthermore, because of her greater maturity and experience an infant born to such a mature female is more likely to survive. It is as if male chimps are programmed to know this and respond accordingly. Given a choice between two sexually swollen females, male chimps invariably choose the older one. It is interesting to speculate why men in some societies differ from other primates in this respect, placing so much emphasis on youth. One reason, I suspect, is that these men are in a position to monopolize access to their mate and to literally possess her long-term. The mate he acquires may end up living in his social unit for a long time, whereas a male chimpanzee is merely seeking to fertilize a female and have done. Even though males of their respective species may have different criteria for sexual attractiveness, women and female chimps are nevertheless characterized by the same pattern of fertility, shaped liked a lopsided bowler hat.
Early adulthood is the time women are most fertile, their pregnancies most likely to have a good outcome, and their infants most likely to survive. For most women, fertility peaks between the early and mid-twenties, although among some poorly nourished West African and Nepali groups peak fertility is much later, around twenty-six to twenty-nine years. Fertility is lower and the probability of miscarriage higher among the very young and very old. After peaking in early adulthood, fertility declines with age, falling to zero at menopause, sometime in the forties for chimps and women in most foraging societies, later for women in postindustrial societies - and around thirty in a captive macaque.
Late menarche and adolescent subfertility protect a young female from a dangerous reproductive enterprise unlikely to yield surviving offspring. The same stockpiled resources could be put to far better use later, when offspring would be more likely to be born healthy and to survive. The importance of such delays may be even more critical for human mothers than other primates because conscious planning plays such an important role in our ability to cope. Yet faculties critical for emotional control and for organizing and carrying through with plans of action are still maturing at the same time her ovaries are. This is why some psychiatrists refer to early reproductive maturation as "starting a car engine without a skilled driver."
Since the Neolithic, and especially in the past several centuries, better-nourished girls have begun to mature earlier, and are capable of conceiving earlier than ever before in human existence --- closer to twelve than twenty. In the United States in 1996, a half-million babies were born to girls between ages fifteen and nineteen, 11,000 to girls fourteen and under --- the highest rate of teenage births of any industrialized country.
People refer to this as the problem of teenage pregnancy, yet it is more nearly a problem of failed contraception, an undermining of evolved safeguards that under conditions more typical of human existence protected very young girls from inopportune conceptions. Any adolescent girl living under foraging conditions who found herself in the unusual situation of being plump enough to trigger ovulation in her early teens would almost certainly be in an unusually productive habitat. She also --- and this is important --- would have to be surrounded by well-disposed adults helping to provision her. In modern societies, however, adolescents can be terribly disadvantaged, lack all manner of social and economic support, yet still be so hypernourished that they reach menarche at twelve and conceive by fifteen. The amount of fat a girl has on board has become a dangerously misleading signal telling this young mammal that it is a good time to go ahead and reproduce, when it is anything but. In the United States today early childbearing and large numbers of closely spaced births are the two greatest risk factors for child abuse and infanticide. . .
The way the hypothalamus and pituitary respond to signals secreted by fat cells is another one of those clues suggesting that evolution did not end with the Pleistocene, nor stop when radiation out of Africa got under way. Depending on the geographic origin of her ancestors, different girls' thresholds responding to the hormones that trigger menarche are set slightly differently. Selection pressures on her not-so-distant ancestors have become encapsulated in her genome. Hence, age of menarche varies not only with a girl's immediate circumstances but also according to where her ancestors came from.
Even fed the same diet of high-fat, high-carbohydrate Big Mac equivalents, daughters of mothers born in the warmer climes of southeastern Europe reach menarche earlier on average than daughters whose ancestors came from northwestern Europe. Just why this is so (cold winters? taller bodies? greater likelihood of famine?) is not known. Nevertheless, recent European migrants to Australia, all currently living in the same environment, start to menstruate at different ages depending on whether their mothers came from southern or northern Europe --- strong evidence that some genetic component influences age of menarche.
In all primates, menarche can be speeded up or slowed down by various factors. Primate females respond to social stress, mother's low status, or unpredictable resources, by delaying puberty. Curiously, one of the first findings about human mating systems to catch the attention of sociobiologists was an apparent exception to this pattern. Girls growing up in households where the father was absent reached menarche earlier on average than those with the father present.
Struck by this correlation, evolutionary-minded anthropologists Pat Draper and Henry Harpending proposed that girls growing up in "father-absent" households are conditioned to expect men to provide little and to be unpredictable ("cads" was their memorable term, as opposed to more nurturing and reliable "dads"), and respond accordingly by pursuing alternative, more promiscuous reproductive strategies. Having written off the likelihood of being able to forge an enduring pair bond, the girl opts for a more opportunistic strategy aimed at short-term gains.
In line with this model, girls growing up without fathers engage in sex earlier, and with more different partners. Some researchers hypothesize that sexual maturation might be speeded up by a higher level of social stress in the home that "triggers an early increase in gonadal and adrenal hormones facilitating early sexual activity among girls." Essentially, then, early menarche is assumed to be an effect produced by ecological and social circumstances, including the daughters perception of her mother's plight.
It is an intriguing hypothesis. In some circles it is already accepted as fact. It is, however, a hypothesis that makes primatologists uneasy, because the underlying reproductive physiology is so "unprimatelike." "The less predictable the resource base, the greater the social stress -- the earlier the female matures?" a primatologist asks incredulously. Completely the opposite is true for resource-deprived baboons and low ranking female chimps. In other primates, stressed females delay rather than speed up maturation.
The main competing hypothesis is that the correlation is an artifact of something else. The alternative hypothesis focuses on a girl's genetic inheritance from a mother who matured early rather than some nonheritable "maternal effect." If mothers who reach menarche earlier, engage in sex earlier, and become pregnant at an earlier age, are, as a consequence of this personal history less likely to end up in a stable relationship, then their early-maturing daughters would find themselves growing up in a household without a father. This would then make early menarche more nearly an incidental correlate of absent fathers than an adaptation to cope with them. At this writing, the puzzle remains unsolved.
Mother Nature: A History of Mothers, Infants, and Natural Selection. Blaffer Hrdy, p. 184-190.
Steeze Urkel
You live a rich fantasy life
Whitey's Fertility Keeps Subsiding While Darkies's Keeps Soaring! We Gotta Do Somethin' 'Bout This Peoples!
http://instagram.com/p/e5qFbnQFyS/
BOOM, Turnin' 'Em Out With Ease. 90% Of Polynesians Females, Particularly Samoan And Tongan Females, Have Their First Child Between The Ages Of 12 And 21. After That First Child They Begin Turning Out Children Like Clock Work (A New One Every Year Until They're In Their 30s). Fertility Is Heritable. The Larger The Family You Come From (The More Siblings You Have) The More Children You Yourself Will Have. This Is Especially True Among Samoan And Tongan Females Who Come From Large Families. A Family Of 5 Is Considered Small In The Tongan And Samoan World.
 |
| European And White American Females' Age At First Reproduction Is Increasing While It Continues To Remain Constant (The Same) Or, In Some Cases, DecreasE For Colored Folkz Like Africans, Blacks, Polynesians, Filipinos, Mexicans, Etc. In Other Words, European And White Girls Are Having Their First Child At A Later Age In Life While Colored Girls Continue To Have Their First Child As Soon As They Reach Menarche Or Thereabouts. |
Among the Mohave, women were famous for their licentious habits and disinclination to stick with one man. Caesar (yes, that Caesar) was scandalized to note that in Iron Age Britain, “Ten and even twelve have wives common to them, and particularly brothers among brothers….” During his three months in Tahiti in 1769, Captain James Cook and his crew found that Tahitians “gratified every appetite and passion before witnesses.” In an account of Cook’s voyage first published in 1773, John Hawkesworth wrote of “[a] young man, nearly six feet high, perform[ing] the rites of Venus with a little girl about 11 or 12 years of age, before several of our people and a great number of natives, without the least sense of its being indecent or improper, but, as appeared, in perfect conformity to the custom of the place.” Some of the older islander women who were observing this amorous display apparently called out instructions to the girl, although Cook tells us, “Young as she was, she did not seem much to stand in need of [them].”
Samuel Wallis, another ship captain who spent time in Tahiti, reported, “The women in General are very handsome, some really great Beauties, yet their Virtue was not proof against a Nail.” The Tahitians’ fascination with iron resulted in a de-facto exchange of a single nail for a sexual tryst with a local woman. By the time Wallis set sail, most of his men were sleeping on deck, as there were no nails left from which to hang their hammocks.
Sex At Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins Of Modern Sexuality. Ryan, p. 95.
POLYNESIAN FEMALES, BECAUSE OF GENES AND DIET, REACH MENARCHE AT AN EARLIER AGE, ARRIVE AT MENOPAUSE AT A LATER AGE, AND THUS HAVE A LONGER REPRODUCTIVE SPAN (AS A RESULT OF THEIR GENES THEY MAY BE MUCH MORE FERTILE AND FECUND AS WELL).
Celebrate Good Times. Cum On! Let's Celibate!
WE ARE ALL HOMOSEXUAL. WE ALL HAVE HOMOSEXUAL PROPENSITIES, SOME MORE THAN OTHERS (EVERYONE IS GAY). READ BELOW.
I'LL ELABORATE ON THESE PAGES LATER! AND FULLY EXPLAIN THE PROPOSED HYPOTHESIS'S IMPLICATIONS ON MALE BEHAVIOR, ESPECIALLY MALE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR!
Kinsey's view is supported by cross-cultural studies, which indicate incredible variation in attitudes toward sex. Homosexuality is freely expressed, even encouraged, in some cultures. The ancient Greeks come to mind, but there is also the Anada tribe of Australia, among whom an older man lives sexually with a boy until the former is ready to marry a woman, and in which women rub each other's clitorises for pleasure. In the Keraki of New Guinea, intercourse with men is part of every boy's puberty rites, and there are other cultures in which boys fellate older men in order to ingest sperm, supposedly to gain masculine strength. Contrast this with cultures that surround homosexuality with fear and taboos, especially in men, who underline their manhood by stressing their heterosexuality. No heterosexual male wants to be mistaken for a homosexual. Intolerance forces everyone to carve up their sexuality and chose among its parts, giving the impression of discrete types even though, underneath, a wide range of preferences may exist, including individuals with no preference at all.
I'm stressing this cultural overplay to explain why the common evolutionary question of how homosexuality could have arisen may be beside the point. Since homosexuals do not reproduce, so the argument goes, they should have gone extinct a long time ago. But this is a puzzle only if we buy into modern labeling practices. What if declared sexual preferences are mere approximations? What if we have been brainwashed into either/or thinking? And what about the premise that homosexuals fail to reproduce? Is this really the case? They are certainly capable of reproduction, and in modern society many are married during some stage of their lives. Plenty of gay couples are raising families in our world. The extinction argument also assumes a genetic gulf between homosexuals and heterosexuals. It is true that sexual preferences appear constitutional - meaning that we are born with them or at least develop them early in life - but rumors of "gay genes" notwithstanding, there is as yet no evidence for systematic genetic difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Let us step away from the sexual domain and just speak of attraction to one's own sex, assuming that this attraction exists to some degree in all of us. We easily bond with individuals who are like ourselves, so this part is not hard to follow. Inasmuch as same-sex attraction does not prevent attraction to the opposite sex, its evolution would have met with no obstacles. Now, add to this the idea that there exists a gray area between social attraction on the one hand and sexual attraction on the other. That is, same-sex attraction may have sexual undertones that surface only under certain circumstances. If the opposite sex is out of sight for a long time, for instance, such as at boarding schools, in prisons, nunneries, or on ships, same-sex bonding often turns sexual, which might not have happened otherwise. And when inhibitions disappear, such as when men drink too much, all of a sudden they hang around each others' necks. The idea that attractions that are not consciously sexual can still have a sexual side is, of course, far from new: Freud impressed this upon us long ago. We are so afraid of sex that we try to squeeze it into a little box with a lid on it, but it slips ouT all the time, mixing with a multitude of other tendencies.
Attraction to our own gender is not an evolutionary problem inasmuch as it does not conflict with reproduction. Let's further assume that this attraction is highly variable, with its social side winning out in the majority of individuals and its sexual side in a minority. The minority is small. Kinsey's estimate of 10 percent homosexuals in the population was a gross exaggeration. Most recent surveys report less than half this figure. Within this minority exists an even tinier group with a same-sex attraction so strong that it precludes heterosexual sex and, hence, reproduction. The largest randomized study of sexual behavior in date, carried out in the 1990s in the United States and Great Britain, puts the number of exclusive homosexuals below 1 percent. Only if this mini-minority were to carry genes that no one else has would there be a puzzle - how would these genes be passed on? But, as said, there is no solid evidence for such genes. Besides the 99 percent of the population with the ability to reproduce seems to have no trouble passing on the same-sex attraction of which homosexuality seems an outgrowth.
Rather than a "lifestyle choice," as some conservatives wishfully label it, this outgrowth comes naturally to certain individuals. It's part of who they are. In some cultures they are free to pursue it, whereas in others they need to hide it. Since there are no cultureless people, it's impossible to know how our sexuality would look in the absence of these influences. Pristine human nature is like the Holy Grail: eternally looked for, never found.
But we do have the bonobo. This ape is instructive sinCe it knows no sexual prohibitions and few inhibitions. Bonobos demonstrate a rich sexuality in the absence of the cultural overlays that we create. This is not to say that bonobos are furry people: they are clearly a separate and different species. On Kinsey's 0-6 scale from hetero- to homosexual, humans may be predominantly at the heterosexual end but bonobos seem totally "bi," or a perfect Kinsey 3. They are literally pansexual - a most fortuitous label, given their genus name. As far as we know, there are no exclusively hetero- or homosexual bonobos; all of them engage in sex with virtually all kinds of partners. When this news about one of our closest relatives broke, I was drawn into a discussion on a gay Internet site where some argued that this meant that homosexuality was natural, whereas others complained that it made it look primitive. With "natural" sounding good and "primitive" sounding bad, the question was whether the gay community should or shouldn't be happy with bonobos. I didn't really have an answer: the bonobo is here, whether people like it or not. But I did suggest they take "primitive" to mean what it means in biology - namely, the more ancestral form. In this sense, heterosexuality is obviously more primitive than homosexuality: in the beginning there was sexual reproduction, leading to two sexes and a sex drive. Additional applications of this drive must have come later, including same-sex sexual relations.
Same-sex sex is certainly not limited to humans and bonobos. Monkeys mount members of their own sex to demonstrate dominance and are also known to present their behinds in appeasement. In macaques, females consort with each other like a heterosexual pair, one female regularly climbing on top of the other. Example after example of homosexual sex has been documented in the animal kingdom, from mounting bull elephants and necking giraffes to the greeting ceremonies of swans and mutual carcasses among whales. But even if some animals go through periods in which such behavior is common, I shy away from the term "homosexual" and its implication of a predominant orientation. Exclusive same-sex orientations are rare or absent in the animal kingdom. Bonobos are sometimes presented as gay animals, leading to a Bonobo Bar in almost every cosmopolitan city. True, bonobos have frequent homosexual sex, if we use this term just to denote the act. Females do it with each other all the time, and in fact GG-rubbing is the political cement of their society. It clearly is part of female bonding. Males regularly engage in sexual behavior with each other, too, although less intensely than females. But none of this is enough to make bonobos gay. I know of no bonobos who restrict sex to members of their own gender. Instead, they are fully promiscuous and bisexual.
Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are. Waal, p.100-104.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBtLZSYPmJ0
http://gamechangers.ru/sites/default/files/genome_the_autobiography_of_a_species_in_23_chapters_-_matt_ridley_0.pdf
Flame.Boyant
Theres no such thing as a bisexual male. You either straight or gay. The end.
POLYNESIAN
IQ OF 90 ON DISPLAY FOR ALL TO SEE. HEY, CHINESE GIRL, FIND THE
PARAGRAPHS ON HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE BOOK LINKED ABOVE (HERE, I'LL FIND
THEM FOR YOU. PAGES 116-121). IF YOU HAVE THE
INTELLIGENCE TO UNDERSTAND IT IT MIGHT CHANGE YOUR MIND.
https://twitter.com/MothafknSangria/status/374739118921494529/photo/1
LOOK AT HOW FAT THE CHINESE GIRL HAS GOTTEN. Shanghai Yau Fat
https://twitter.com/MothafknSangria/status/374739118921494529/photo/1
LOOK AT HOW FAT THE CHINESE GIRL HAS GOTTEN. Shanghai Yau Fat
