Fr. A male friend of mine got into make up. Nail polish and such. I notice men who do this, stick to safe black. I asked if he wanted more colour, and he did. I remember cracking being a thing back in 2008 or so. A great caviat to go from just black, to black with colour! Perhaps men could bring this back into fashion lol

The young men’s version of a facebook MLM group.

This is a perfect description of the male and female meta. It is why males are stronger. Not to protect or lead, but to control through fear and violence.

It’s a priviledge men developed a higher sensitivity to oxytocin to compensate for a lower expression of the stuff. Enabling men to give a damn about someone other than their desire to dominate. Men can love their partner, their family, friends, their pets because of this.

Chimps ain’t that lucky, and males would rather watch an orphan die from neglect (and eat it) than take care of it. The males are known to kill females for showing assertive behaviour.

Same goes for prolactin in the brain, that makes humans more monogamous and increases a desire to protect something you care about. It never was a male feature before, but it became one in humans. It even peaks after the baby is born and the father is exposed to seeing his baby. Over time, similar adaptations to the brains of pregnant women, are seen in father’s brains. Which is amazing.

Men ain’t that bad, but old habits die hard. Men are more aggressive, stronger, more impulsive and less afraid of consequences on average compared to women. Those who were better at avoiding male aggression, lived longer. Hence why estrogens play a role in stimulating brain development in areas essential to risk assesment, consequence sensitivity, resistance to suicide, thinking ahead, planning, reading emotions (of themselves and others), learning and memory, reducing own aggression, communication and impulse control. Giving women an edge in academical performance despite there not being a statistical difference in intelligence. (Imagine if men had these boons instead…)

While all those obvious “big scary male” traits in men makes them seem like a bigger threat, women are well equipped and know how to dominate and eliminate people indirectly.

Nice to see siamese twin representation.

If anything, it is just nature. We are all related. Every fish swimming in the sea, every herb you add to your food, every bone in the ground. We are all related, and we all follow the same rules. Determined by limited resources.

Agreed. A friend of mine is a veteran, and did something that he regrets every day of his life. Guilt’s been eating the guy. He told some people, and they cut off contact with him. Which he understands and agrees with. He told me too, and yet I can’t blame him for doing something objectively wrong.

Reminds me of this: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0361684319871913

In short. The higher the social status of the woman compared to the man, the more likely the man is to sexually objectify her. Wheras women aren’t more likely to do this based on relative status.

Objectification is defined as reducing a person to solely looks and sexual function.

Similar stuff is seen in primates. Females are easier targets to assert dominance over. Since they are physically weaker. Male long tail maqacues losing their status, would seek out younger/weaker targets to establish dominance over. Something that was interesting too, is that female maqacues with more masculine facial features, were less often subjected to dominance seeking behaviour (from both males and females if I recall correctly) than females with more feminine faces.

It seems to boil down to “who can I dominate with little risk?” Female? Easy. Big male? Stupid idea. Young male? No problem. Male of equal size? Potentially.