File: 1495839251757.jpg (80.93 KB, 697x521, somk5mlhpuzy.jpg)
No.12109
File: 1495840874121.jpg (99.07 KB, 752x720, [HorribleSubs] Gabriel Dro….jpg)
I suppose my local zoo could use another monkey……
No.12118
File: 1495848710502.png (645.69 KB, 1050x1050, 24q7mk1ooecx.png)
Before civilization has been created, the strongest men would fuck most women and reproduce this way. Women had no say, whatsoever, about reproduction. They'd mostly get raped all the time. Currently, almost all men are stronger than almost all women. It's an evolutionary result of the said rape reproduction strategy. Actually, most mammals in one way or another, rape all the time. But because they haven't exactly got things such as empathy or self-awareness, they don't care. With time humans evolved things such as compassion and slowly it faded into the night. Even today, rape is the #1 fantasy women have, and if you're not a kissless virgin loser who reads tumblr, you will know that women don't find kindness sexually attractive. They love, when you start strangling them a little and be aggressive. Asking a woman for consent turns them off. It's a fact of science.
Civilizational progress has created marriage and monogamy to distribute the women fairly, so you don't have 1 male hogging a bunch of females. Thanks to this, we have achieved everything you can read in the history books. Even Freud argued that civilizational progress is the result of sexual repression. That's why religions are important, if you can, enumerate a single civilization that has been successful for any meaningful amount of time without religion. Literally none. Even “promiscuous” ancient Greeks had strong rules regarding marriage. When society in the Western Roman Empire cared less and less about the family unit, it eventually led to their collapse. It's not widely spoken about, but Roman empire at the end of its lifetime had pretty strong feminist values. Few letters and written evidence remain, but you can read about men complaining about this.
No.12119
File: 1495848810229.jpg (960.74 KB, 2000x1485, soviet - st06.jpg)
>>12118We should redistribute women among all the men.
All women singing Katusya in unison!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7PKpR6D4Aw No.12120
File: 1495848886316.jpg (118.84 KB, 720x959, dbbd5d5e464d285b0410ec54d3….jpg)
Banzai Praise Stalin!
No.12123
>>12122Men get their genes from women too though
Makes you think
No.12129
>>12118Men are not bigger than women for that reason, it's because the male is supposed to protect the others and they must fight among themselves so it pays to be bigger.
Women do not fantasize about rape per say, the girls that fantasize about such are thinking of an attractive man who they would voluntarily do things with any way, thus it is not rape.
The roman empire did not collapse for that reason.
No.12131
>>12129>Men are not bigger than women for that reason, it's because the male is supposed to protect the others and they must fight among themselves so it pays to be bigger.If that is the case, why are women strong as well? Wouldn't it be tremendously more evolutionary advantageous to be able to protect your own damn children? You're fucking stupid.
>Women do not fantasize about rape per say, the girls that fantasize about such are thinking of an attractive man who they would voluntarily do things with any way, thus it is not rape.Why, yes, of course. They fantasize about 2 metre viking, handsome giants raping them. I never said it isn't so.
>The roman empire did not collapse for that reason.I am an incomparable homo, that's some very elaborative argument. Yes it did, it's one of the reasons, not the sole reason.
No.12132
>>12131HE TRIPS ON THE WORDFILTERS!
WILL HE RECOVER FROM THIS BRUTAL MISTAKE!
No.12137
>>12131>>12133Because it would take more food to grow and sustain, they would all starve. If it's just the male protecting the group then it is a much smaller amount of food that would be needed.Having said this there are of course some animals that do either have females and males of similar size or have a larger female, these are different species that such things can actually work with though.
Well it isn't rape then is it?
It's not even a reason at all really, certainly never one that has been mentioned by anyone but ignorant and bitter losers. The main reasons were economic decline and their neighbors becoming stronger and more able to fight them, they had trouble with the Germans when they were disorganized tribes with barely any metal causing them to have virtually no armour and basic spears. When they developed to a similar level as the Romans they were able to best them in many cases.
No.12140
>>12137i don't buy it.
the rape version just makes too much sense and has a very clear connection to evolutionary fitness: weak women are raped more often by strong males and therefore have more children, and the daughters are weak themselves and so on.
saying the female's smaller frame comes from nutrition doesn't really make sense, as humans and other animals can limit their growth in response to food scarcity. it would increase fitness to have women be bigger and then just not grow to full size if there isn't enough food, but obviously that's not the case as women today have adequate nutrition but are still smaller than males.
No.12141
File: 1495852441901.jpg (2.28 MB, 4160x2340, IMG_20170526_150430.jpg)
Women are fucking lame just like Japan
No.12146
>>12140Well in the first place it is not rape as such anyway, if you have ever had much to do with raising animals you would see that the female generally does not care in most cases, even if the male is smaller than they are. It's not as if they have any dignity or anything.
They can limit their growth, which is what they are doing by limiting the size of the female who is less effective at fighting and has other tasks and giving the male the responsibility of protection. We have only been able to eat as much as we want for such a small amount of time that it would not impact the millions of years of evolution before it.
No.12147
File: 1495853243438.png (514.85 KB, 551x713, 1489525425001.png)
>>12137>ignorant and bitter losersAnd that's how we all know you have no idea what you are talking about, you have no idea about biology nor evolution
You just care to “prove those misogynistic losers wrong”. You're officially cognitively deficient. You will do any mental gymnastics to prove something that isn't even based on reality, but fantasies of some people who think they will get laid if they are feminist enough. Spare yourself the trouble and re-consider your existence and beliefs. After all, it doesn't seem to be working.
No.12150
>>12147Ahh, a Gabriel poster, this explains everything.
What I am saying has no bearing to any kind of agenda and certainly not an agenda I do not support in the first place, the same of course cannot be said of you.
No.12154
File: 1495853850906.jpg (270.43 KB, 768x1024, fg_kiina010.jpg)
No.12156
>>12139>women are less effective at defending the group in the first place in many species like ours. Exactly. Because they are evolved to be weaker.
>They are developed to birth and raise children so their bodies are both less effective, have nutrients diverted to other functions in the first place and if they are pregnant they are going to need something protection them anyway.Claiming that ability to produce offspring = weaker body doesn't make any fucking sense WHATSOEVER. As a matter of fact, women who have more muscle to them/bigger frames are more likely to give a birth to a healthy child. I am pretty sure it's scientifically verifiable. We cannot say either way, nor me nor you have scientific evidence to point towards bigger frame vs. more nutrients to a child theory.
>>12146>They can limit their growth, which is what they are doing by limiting the size of the female who is less effective at fighting and has other tasks and giving the male the responsibility of protection. We have only been able to eat as much as we want for such a small amount of time that it would not impact the millions of years of evolution before it.That's just yet another one of your interpretations, just like the previous thing. Fact of science is: a bigger man can rape a weaker woman, and it happened. It'd be tremendously more evolutionary advantageous for an individual to rape as many females as possible and hog as many of them as you can. It's a scientific fact that before civilization that happened. You can look it up in scientific, peer-reviewed journals. I don't even know what you argue anymore. Regardless of whether it's a side-effect of nutrition a female needed to bring up a child or not it doesn't matter.
You didn't disprove the original theory.
No.12157
File: 1495854088607.jpg (2.7 MB, 4160x2340, IMG_20170527_101157.jpg)
Kill women
No.12160
File: 1495854388787.jpg (176.94 KB, 640x960, 047.jpg)
Reminder nobody ever got anything, or changed an opposing party's mind in any internet argument ever.
No.12164
File: 1495854613517.gif (86.51 KB, 351x398, laugh.gif)
>>12163You tripped on another filter I am not an incomparable homo.
No.12165
>>12156It does produce a weaker body as the body is developed to suite other purposes. A woman with a high muscle content would not birth healthier children, women are covered in layers of fat needed to create children and it would not matter if she died because she was the strongest woman in the world but was eight months pregnant and could not defend her self in the first place.
Actually pretty much all people in the relevant fields support what I say, there was a really good one I saw somewhere but I can't find it again.
No.55978
>>12114That would be pornography for women. It exists and it's called the erotic novel.
Hating pornography that focuses on appearance is sexist towards men because that's how male sexuality works.