Beatrice: W-Wirt, can I tell you something?

ah yes of course, how could i have been so blind. you present such a compelling case that it all seems clear as day no im not rolling my eyes at you they just do that sometimes its a tick

Cuck

You type like a faggot.

Modern humans have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors. Meaning that multiple women per man has been normal for tens of thousands of years.

Wouldn't that mean that men are whores?

Which way do you think the transfer of money/food/resources went in those interactions?

A whore is someone who sleeps around with different people. If our male ancestors did that more so than our female ancestors, then that would mean males today are more whorish than women.

>Which way do you think the transfer of money/food/resources went in those interactions?
My understanding is that our hunter-gatherer ancestors were pretty egalitarian, and pooled resources. My guess would be that the discrepancy has more to do with women seeking high-quality genes than securing resources.

>A whore is someone who sleeps around with different people
A whore is someone who exchanges sex for payment. Historically, men have wanted sex, and worked to acquire status and resources to attract women. Unlike most men, most women have had the option to exchange sex for the resources needed to live, which were far scarcer in the past than they are now. And many did. This should not be controversial.

A woman who has many sexual partners for free is a "slut", and is regarded poorly because it represents poor risk management and long-term life outcomes. Women's reproductive capacity is limited, so evolutionarily optimal behavior involves being selective about partners, and picking one who will stick around to help raise the kids. A man who has many sexual partners for free is regarded somewhat positively because he has managed to attract many women, and is following the optimal male reproductive strategy for someone with sufficient status/resources to manage it.

>My guess would be that the discrepancy has more to do with women seeking high-quality genes than securing resources.
And you just identified the other factor. One of the few universal attraction triggers in women (found in every culture ever examined) is high social status. Only a small percentage of men are high-status enough to attract women this way, and many women would prefer to share one high-status man than settle for a low-status monogamous partner. We're seeing this on modern dating apps as the cultural institutions that enforced monogamy have broken down and the social safety nets have disincentivized stable long-term relationships.

I'm not reading all that. Go back to sucking on Jordan Peterson's hairy ballsack.

holy shit

>many women would prefer to share one high-status man than settle for a low-status monogamous partner
lmao, not true at all. maybe for their genes, but not for a long-term relationship.

Beatrice: Jet fuel can't melt steel beams.

Accumulation of resources was only possible with the advent of agriculture. Before that, food was shared evenly among hunter-gatherer tribes because there was no way of storing it, and it also wasn't that scare either. This means there was no advantage for women sharing a mate, and it was optimal to have the full attentiveness of one man to help take care of her child. We have evolved to be (mostly) monogamous due to the difficulty of child-rearing. You're right that women tend to care slightly more about status than men, but this doesn't mean women will happily forego monogamy in favour of it. The vast majority of women want one man to commit to them, and vice versa. The practice of having multiple wives began with civilization, and it was most certainly not at the desire of women.

I really hate this tendency of evopsychers to be extremely reductionist.

Anthropology says otherwise.
Well into the modern era we've had African tribes where the most powerful man around has the most wives--not because he snatches them up, but because they're happy to be in the best household where they get to enjoy actual luxuries.

>white people's culture and history represents all humanity
>complaining about other people being reductionist
kek

Real anthropologists don't pretend that modern hunter-gatherers are accurate representations of how we lived 100,000 years ago. Sounds like the tribe you're talking about isn't even hunter-gatherer, so it's even more worthless.

user is right. Even biologically speaking as women do give strong signals when ovulating to attract strong suiters and men have 3 different kinds of sperm as to both eradicate a weaker man's sperm and protect their own during fertilization

Strong signals my ass, women have concealed ovulation.

Whatever you say Beatrice!

Attached: e2e8bf4dc4e312b12b93ffb580ec2057.png (1100x900, 463K)

>Implying Wirt is for Beatrice or Sara, and not Jason FunderCHAD.

Attached: Jason_Funderberker.png (430x336, 110K)

Beatrice and Sara Status: [DICKED]

Into the eternal darkness, into fire and into ice.

BASED

Beatrice: Despite making up only 13% of the population...

Beatrice: Have I ever told you about our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ

Wirt: MS OBAMA

low T, possibly even no T

t. basement dwelling kv

then why haven't you had sex?

fuck, what did i miss

Run of the mill profanity. Unremarkable except for the discussion that followed.

good hookers are expensive

lost the argument

Good thing the mods deleted it, God knows what might happen if your eyes happen to read mean words on Yea Forums.

Ah, but this is 4channel now. Blue boards, not blue language. Apparently.