something_else

That's essentially exactly what I said in the rest of my response outside of the small section you quoted.

Hunting and warfare are quite different. Like I said, men's strength adaptations were probably more for war with other humans/tribes rather than specifically for hunting. Humans have never relied on their strength for hunting, even the strongest human would lose to a lion in a physical fight. Our strengths when it came to hunting were stamina, being able to throw things, and being able to use tools, all of which a pre-historic woman could do effectively too. That's a perfectly reasonable evolutionary hypothesis, and I suspect there's some truth to it. But it assumes hunting was sufficiently dangerous that the reproductive costs of women participating outweighed the benefits of the additional food they could provide. We don't actually know that, hunting deer and small animals probably wasn't very risky. And even if it explains why men generally hunted more, it doesn't establish that women were excluded from hunting altogether. Also, there's another flaw in this argument. Men aren't nearly as disposable as you're making them out to be. If a tribe lost 20% of its men, it's not like their partners would suddenly just jump into bed with other men. Humans formed pair bonds even back then. Men also contributed to childcare and providing resources, so losing them would have real consequences beyond just their ability to reproduce. It's not like tribes would happily send men off to die just because they were easier to replace reproductively. They likely had to balance the risks and benefits of hunting for everyone, not just women.

You're so sure you know how everybody else should be living and how they're thinking. Dude, live your own life and stop trying to insist everybody else should live life and think how you do. Have some empathy.

I agree with the overall sentiment of the criticism here, but I am inclined to play devils advocate a bit, for fun. One thing worth remembering is that a lot of our understanding of prehistoric human behaviour is reconstructed from fairly limited evidence. Evolutionary explanations can become plausible-sounding stories that reflect our more modern cultural assumptions. The underlying point this person is trying to make is "we don't actually know as much about how early humans acted as we all like to think we do" bundled in a controversial enough wrapper that it will garner attention. There almost certainly were women who hunted back then. The most successful way to hunt as a pre-historic human was probably endurance and throwing spears, which women aren't inherently disadvantaged at. We assume men developed strength for hunting and providing, but it's also possible men developed extra strength for intra-species competition like fighting other men, and war. Small Stage Purple tribes would likely have a lot of variance between them because there isn't a massive underlying social structure spanning empires that you would get from something like Stage Blue civilisations. Some tribes may have distributed hunting between men and women, some may have restricted women from hunting, some may even have been matriarchal. The truth is we don't actually have that much evidence either way, because it's all pre-historic. By the time we have access to historical record we're already hitting Stage Blue where the variance starts to coalesce into modern social hierarchies and distribution of labour.

This is 100% already, or going to become, a cult.

@Emerald I think women do fantasise about sex with a guy even if it’s casual. But as you say, casual sex is freely available and so the standards for fantasising about a guy casually are way higher than they would be for a relationship. There often has to be some hot power dynamic, or he has to be really hot, or charismatic. I think this gives rise to a lot of the incel beliefs that women only want the top X% of men, because in a casual sense that’s often true. Girls who are having casual sex often go after the guys that still present a bit of a challenge for them to ‘get’ casually, which will be the guys who have other options. Obviously this is a heuristic and not universally the case. But I’ve had quite a bit of casual sex and still find that women who are open to it fantasise a lot about it with me, or other guys they’ve hooked up with. One of the more interesting things about casual sex for me is that with that casual dynamic, women seem pretty willing to share thoughts on sex snd dating, and past sexual experiences. Compared to a guy they’re interested in dating where I get a sense they’d be less willing to do that.

Yea, exactly. I’m not even sure porn is that much of a net negative. Stuff like infinite scroll algorithms on social media are orders of magnitude worse and probably easier to regulate

Banning VPNs would be absolutely wild. There are so many legitimate use cases for them, for example many companies use them for security.

No! I disagree. I don’t know it. You can’t just assume other people feel the same way you do about a topic.

That’s not an articulated argument, that’s a statement and vibes.

You really haven’t. It’s all very vibes based rather than a properly articulated argument

That’s fair. But banning something just because “it feels right in your heart” is quite a leap. You need to be able to articulate why something is wrong beyond “it feels wrong to me”. Someone who grew up in a cult probably thinks it “feels wrong in their heart” to disobey their cult leader, they are experiencing that exact same feeling you are, yet from the outside it is plain as day that feeling is wrong, limiting, and unhealthy. I’m not saying that you are wrong, simply that you should look more deeply into why you feel this way so strongly yet are unable to articulate a reason why. If you can’t find a way to articulate it clearly then it may be an indication that it’s an artefact of the shame, repression or ideas you learnt about sexuality when you were younger rather than a sensible and healthy point of view.

The domain can be yours for only £2

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/582784 “The study, published in the journal Socius, found that between 2007 and 2017, the percentage of 18-to 23-year-old men who had casual sex in the past month dropped from 38 percent to 24 percent. The percentage dropped from 31 percent to 22 percent for young women of the same age.” Casual sex and relationships have both significantly declined since the 90s and early 2000s. You’ve changed the argument again. In your previous post you said casual sex is bad because it desensitises your conscience, now you’re expanding on that by saying… porn desensitises your conscience? On that point I can agree, certain porn likely does. But your original point was that casual sex desensitises conscience, not porn. These are two separate arguments. Honestly, I’m getting tired of discussing this with you because your arguments and points are severely lacking in consistency and detail.

So how come as porn use has skyrocketed, promiscuity has gone down? ”desensitises you and your conscience” is very vague, please explain what you mean in more detail and perhaps with some examples

Again, this is a separate point. I do not see the issue with casual sex, so provide an actual argument first why casual sex is bad instead of “it just is, look bro” and we can talk about this next. But let’s conclude the initial argument first: do you stand by your statement that porn causes promiscuity?

Goalposts just got wayyyyyy wider. Let’s bring them back to the original point you made which was “porn increases promiscuity” If you concede that there is no evidence for this, we can discuss this next point.

Ironically it’s kind of kinky. Orgasm denial from the government We’ll call this regime The Directorate for Algorithmic Detection of Deviant Yankers, or D.A.D.D.Y for short.

It’s literally a 5 second google to get this information, but here’s one of the thousands of articles covering it for your ease https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-sex-recession-the-share-of-americans-having-regular-sex-keeps-dropping?utm_source=chatgpt.com Both single and married people are having less sex. Could porn have influenced this? Yea, potentially. But that’s a separate argument. Your point of “porn causes promiscuity” has little to no evidence backing it, in fact most of the evidence points to the contrary

“Promiscuity means engaging in casual sexual activity frequently with different partners or being indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners without long-term commitment or exclusivity.” Yet the overall amount of sex being had has gone down since the 90s. So as porn has increased, promiscuity has decreased

Lol, dream on Has it though? People are actually having less sex on average now than they did in the past. If anything, porn lowers the amount of promiscuity in the world

No no you misunderstand you see, this thread isn’t about age /s

Anybody with a phone can film porn, banning creation is probably harder than banning consumption

I think this is extremely naive. The UK govt has introduced a mandatory age check on porn sites. What happened? All the big porn sites implemented it, but all the little ones didn’t because the govt can’t make them. So now you funnel kids towards the sketchy ass unregulated porn sites instead of the ones that follow regulations. What you’re talking about would require coordination on a global level, massive internet restriction and monitoring infrastructure, potentially OS level monitoring on every single phone, laptop and computer. The privacy implications for this alone are horrific. And even then it wouldn’t be comprehensive enough to stop a mildly determined teenager with a Linux image.

The dream of the conservative techno feudalist