03 Jul 2020, 7:34 pm
Citymale wrote:
The amount of attention from men you got by starting and continuing this thread is similar to the problem you described. Your problem is serious indeed) Lol
hahaha delicious.
...It's actually an interesting experiment I have going on here if you want
But I'm truly glad to hear these opinions from the perspective of males. So many inputs..
03 Jul 2020, 11:37 pm
LunaticCentruroides wrote:
Citymale wrote:
The amount of attention from men you got by starting and continuing this thread is similar to the problem you described. Your problem is serious indeed) Lol
hahaha delicious.
...It's actually an interesting experiment I have going on here if you want
But I'm truly glad to hear these opinions from the perspective of males. So many inputs..
Nerdy is good.
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,044
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
03 Jul 2020, 11:54 pm
cyberdad wrote:
Citymale wrote:
The amount of attention from men you got by starting and continuing this thread is similar to the problem you described. Your problem is serious indeed) Lol
The LC appreciation thread
Yes I noticed that too, where are all the girls?
Because they all replied what they experienced in the first few pages; they have no further need for further input.
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,044
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
03 Jul 2020, 11:57 pm
LunaticCentruroides wrote:
Citymale wrote:
The amount of attention from men you got by starting and continuing this thread is similar to the problem you described. Your problem is serious indeed) Lol
hahaha delicious.
...It's actually an interesting experiment I have going on here if you want
But I'm truly glad to hear these opinions from the perspective of males. So many inputs..
The moment you created this thread to complain about guys:
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/SentimentalBi ... ricted.gif
Now it’s the slicing time.
04 Jul 2020, 12:46 am
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
LunaticCentruroides wrote:
Citymale wrote:
The amount of attention from men you got by starting and continuing this thread is similar to the problem you described. Your problem is serious indeed) Lol
hahaha delicious.
...It's actually an interesting experiment I have going on here if you want
But I'm truly glad to hear these opinions from the perspective of males. So many inputs..
The moment you created this thread to complain about guys:
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/SentimentalBi ... ricted.gif
Now it’s the slicing time.
I look forward to your input, each day.
<popcorn>
04 Jul 2020, 7:09 am
LunaticCentruroides wrote:
Pepe wrote:
That is how I see it.
We are very unusual here.
Based on what I have observed, over the decades, it is much more "Typical" for those on the spectrum to want to avoid eye contact.
We are very unusual here.
Based on what I have observed, over the decades, it is much more "Typical" for those on the spectrum to want to avoid eye contact.
At some point, I came to the conclusion, that avoiding eye-contact has to do with the overload of information we might absorb. Information we can’t process or handle. But once you can process and understand it, you can use it.
This has been my belief.
LunaticCentruroides wrote:
BTW Taken men keep telling me about their partner as well. It’s always kind of a weird moment like: “did they really think I want something from them?” lol
In the NT world, extended eye contact means overt intimacy, in this context.
We simply have to accept that and learn to break eye contact if we don't want to be misunderstood.
BTW,
I am staring deeply into your eyes now, because I want to understand you better.
Very interesting.
04 Jul 2020, 7:11 am
Citymale wrote:
The amount of attention from men you got by starting and continuing this thread is similar to the problem you described. Your problem is serious indeed) Lol
She has a talent, that one.
04 Jul 2020, 2:29 pm
Pepe wrote:
She has a talent, that one.
You know what they say about those "moon in scorpio" people!
Ok... this thread is amazing!
My primal sisters always have a bunch of men following them. This is because us primals (ECU) run millions year old code in our brains. I have seen this in person with them but I never imagined I would see it online!
Spoiler alert!
Pre-Cultural humans have a specific mating strategy. You know how in moose, there is a bull moose with a bunch of females that "only" he mates with?
Switch genders.
pre-cultural females were the so called "alphas" with a bunch of males vying for a chance to mate. As a female rose up through the ranks of females, she would build a "harem" of males with a primary male. The fittest male would become her primary choice for mating. It is a pretty simple strategy but culture has obscured these old patterns (patriarchy, blech!).
Bonobos have the closest strategy today.
This is what I refer to as "suitor stacking". She watches, then chooses the fittest male (s). All my primal sisters do this to different degrees. I find it fascinating! If they think I am in their suitor stack, they get two middle fingers from me... like come on sis, just because I care about you doesn't mean I am in the stack!
My primal sisters do not know they are doing this and I know they genuinely care for the males in their suitor stacks. The code is running in the males as well, so it is not just them creating the stack!
Oh and they generally get REALLY pissed off when I talk about this!
I don't really care if they do. I think they are awesome just the same. We did not ask to be born the way we were. Primal males have a bunch of stuff going on too that may be less than comfortable to talk about.
Anyway... this is the last piece of this puzzle. Believe it or don't
Addendum: We all run this code so both genders are equally part of this. I do not want people to think this theory is one sided. And also... this is simply part of the evolutionary model and will be in the book.
Last edited by Chain on 04 Jul 2020, 6:53 pm, edited 4 times in total.
04 Jul 2020, 3:04 pm
LunaticCentruroides wrote:
But wouldn’t you say the NT’s are the ones that seem to have more of an “animal” (mainly) in social settings? Even if I see it the way you see it... if I think about it. But we as Aspies, still seem to be the ones being rational, that notice every detail in social interaction, which we process through analyzing? I’m still trying to explore my own brain a lot. It’s so contradicting.
A human is an animal with culture. We have a very tenuous grasp on culture. It has lots of unspoken rules and small talk and strangeness. We don't run culture. We are more primal... I call it animal as a way of working with it but honestly it really cannot be labeled.
LunaticCentruroides wrote:
When I was younger(and sometimes it still happens) looking someone straight in the eyes that looks into my eyes back, is like looking into the sun. It’s bright and hurtful, as if there’s information coming in, which you don’t want to have in your system. But meanwhile it seems to be the opposite. People can’t keep up with me, looking at them.
That is EXACTLY my experience... not surprising. When I was young... the information overload was intense. Eyes were painful. Then they became pleasurable.... now I am cautious again. I love female attention and hate it at the same time. With men, the eye look can threaten them. I have used this to my advantage in the past to get aggressive men to back down.
LunaticCentruroides wrote:
My spirit animal is a Dolphin by the way
I LOVE IT! Smart, graceful, playful, compassionate swims deep and sharks are no match for them
oh... did I forget intense?My wife is a hummingbird
small, fast, feisty and somewhat aggressive. (she punches me when I make jokes about her name "Thu" pronounced like 2)
04 Jul 2020, 3:11 pm
Chain wrote:
This is what I refer to as "suitor stacking". She watches, then chooses the fittest male (s). All my primal sisters do this. I find it fascinating! If they try to put me in their suitor stack they get two middle fingers from me... like come on sis, just because I care about you doesn't mean I am in the stack!
My primal sisters do not know they are doing this and I know they genuinely care for the males in their suitor stacks. The code is running in the males as well, so it is not just them creating the stack!
Oh and they generally get REALLY pissed off when I talk about this!
I don't really care if they do. I think they are awesome just the same. We did not ask to be born the way we were. Primal males have a bunch of stuff going on too that may be less than comfortable to talk about.
Anyway... this is the last piece of this puzzle. Believe or don't
My primal sisters do not know they are doing this and I know they genuinely care for the males in their suitor stacks. The code is running in the males as well, so it is not just them creating the stack!
Oh and they generally get REALLY pissed off when I talk about this!
I don't really care if they do. I think they are awesome just the same. We did not ask to be born the way we were. Primal males have a bunch of stuff going on too that may be less than comfortable to talk about.
Anyway... this is the last piece of this puzzle. Believe or don't
Thanks for this. It explains NTs a bit more to me and also why NT women get as pissed off if they totally fail with just this if it comes to me.
_________________
I am as I am.
Life has to be an adventure!
04 Jul 2020, 8:41 pm
Chain wrote:
pre-cultural females were the so called "alphas" with a bunch of males vying for a chance to mate. As a female rose up through the ranks of females, she would build a "harem" of males with a primary male. The fittest male would become her primary choice for mating. It is a pretty simple strategy but culture has obscured these old patterns (patriarchy, blech!).
Bonobos have the closest strategy today.
This is what I refer to as "suitor stacking". She watches, then chooses the fittest male (s). All my primal sisters do this to different degrees. I find it fascinating! If they think I am in their suitor stack, they get two middle fingers from me... like come on sis, just because I care about you doesn't mean I am in the stack!
Bonobos have the closest strategy today.
This is what I refer to as "suitor stacking". She watches, then chooses the fittest male (s). All my primal sisters do this to different degrees. I find it fascinating! If they think I am in their suitor stack, they get two middle fingers from me... like come on sis, just because I care about you doesn't mean I am in the stack!
Yes this perspective is valid with bonobos and prehistoric humans. You have a innovative way of looking at behaviorial science.
It also explains simps and alphas in modern society
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,044
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
05 Jul 2020, 1:05 am
cyberdad wrote:
Chain wrote:
pre-cultural females were the so called "alphas" with a bunch of males vying for a chance to mate. As a female rose up through the ranks of females, she would build a "harem" of males with a primary male. The fittest male would become her primary choice for mating. It is a pretty simple strategy but culture has obscured these old patterns (patriarchy, blech!).
Bonobos have the closest strategy today.
This is what I refer to as "suitor stacking". She watches, then chooses the fittest male (s). All my primal sisters do this to different degrees. I find it fascinating! If they think I am in their suitor stack, they get two middle fingers from me... like come on sis, just because I care about you doesn't mean I am in the stack!
Bonobos have the closest strategy today.
This is what I refer to as "suitor stacking". She watches, then chooses the fittest male (s). All my primal sisters do this to different degrees. I find it fascinating! If they think I am in their suitor stack, they get two middle fingers from me... like come on sis, just because I care about you doesn't mean I am in the stack!
Yes this perspective is valid with bonobos and prehistoric humans. You have a innovative way of looking at behaviorial science.
It also explains simps and alphas in modern society
This is a false human prehistory; a feminist fantasy - but it’s not the reality.
Humans were never like bonobos.
- Men are stronger and bigger in average than women (yet the difference isn’t that, which means that polygyny wasn’t so extreme).
- Men are *aggressive* and territorials, men waged wars through all mankind history; and often for leadership and power.
- Our DNA shows a polygyny history; there’s far less Y chromosome diversity.
- Even most primitive tribes that exist today, are not matriarchal.
All these evidences show that humans were never like bonobos. I did list the differences between patriarchal and monogamous species before; humans fit more in the first list (as a species, not as a modern culture).
Human ancient societies were always closer to chimps structure; even to gorillas in some ancient cultures.
Read “The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory” by Cynthia Eller - you and Chain are both fallen in this old propaganda.
Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 05 Jul 2020, 1:08 am, edited 3 times in total.
05 Jul 2020, 1:05 am
Chain wrote:
Switch genders.
pre-cultural females were the so called "alphas" with a bunch of males vying for a chance to mate. As a female rose up through the ranks of females, she would build a "harem" of males with a primary male. The fittest male would become her primary choice for mating. It is a pretty simple strategy but culture has obscured these old patterns (patriarchy, blech!).
Bonobos have the closest strategy today.
Are you calling LC a quasi monkey?
True,
The men have gone all ape over her.
05 Jul 2020, 1:38 am
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Chain wrote:
pre-cultural females were the so called "alphas" with a bunch of males vying for a chance to mate. As a female rose up through the ranks of females, she would build a "harem" of males with a primary male. The fittest male would become her primary choice for mating. It is a pretty simple strategy but culture has obscured these old patterns (patriarchy, blech!).
Bonobos have the closest strategy today.
This is what I refer to as "suitor stacking". She watches, then chooses the fittest male (s). All my primal sisters do this to different degrees. I find it fascinating! If they think I am in their suitor stack, they get two middle fingers from me... like come on sis, just because I care about you doesn't mean I am in the stack!
Bonobos have the closest strategy today.
This is what I refer to as "suitor stacking". She watches, then chooses the fittest male (s). All my primal sisters do this to different degrees. I find it fascinating! If they think I am in their suitor stack, they get two middle fingers from me... like come on sis, just because I care about you doesn't mean I am in the stack!
Yes this perspective is valid with bonobos and prehistoric humans. You have a innovative way of looking at behaviorial science.
It also explains simps and alphas in modern society
This is a false human prehistory; a feminist fantasy - but it’s not the reality.
Humans were never like bonobos.
- Men are stronger and bigger in average than women (yet the difference isn’t that, which means that polygyny wasn’t so extreme).
- Men are *aggressive* and territorials, men waged wars through all mankind history; and often for leadership and power.
- Our DNA shows a polygyny history; there’s far less Y chromosome diversity.
- Even most primitive tribes that exist today, are not matriarchal.
All these evidences show that humans were never like bonobos. I did list the differences between patriarchal and monogamous species before; humans fit more in the first list (as a species, not as a modern culture).
Human ancient societies were always closer to chimps structure; even to gorillas in some ancient cultures.
Read “The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory” by Cynthia Eller - you and Chain are both fallen in this old propaganda.
I don't subscribe to the matriarchal model, I just said its a valid hypothesis worthy of investigation.
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,044
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
05 Jul 2020, 1:57 am
I just love the prehistory/evolution subject.
The idea that humans (Homo Sapiens) were originally matriarchal since ever and *suddenly* men took power in some point of history is a ridiculous one: what’s more logical that human patriarchy comes from a more ancient patriarchy; a continuity. Maybe it was different in more ancient ancestor homo species but I am only talking about Homo Sapiens here. Please refer to the book I recommended.
Back to the bonobos; first of all bononos live only in one very small area, in Congo south of the river; studies showed that they were split from chimps (or common ancestor) 1 M years ago. In the north common chimps still live along with their main rival the gorillas.
It is thought that a drought led to the local extinction of gorillas south of the Congo river. After the drought event, bonobos were left alone with no main rival for resources: these conditions gave them the opportunity to develop into a less violent society and less reliance on male dominance; leading to a matriarchal society.
This chance never occurred for humans tho! Humans always had rivals, mostly among themselves; and therefore there was always a “need” for warring. Warring leads to a more patriarchal path in evolution.
Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 05 Jul 2020, 2:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
05 Jul 2020, 2:01 am
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Are ruthless guys more attractive than kind, good guys? |
17 Nov 2024, 8:07 am |
| I'm wanting to go back to work |
09 Sep 2024, 4:25 am |
| Nice guys finish last |
17 Nov 2024, 11:22 pm |
| How do you guys feel about comics? |
05 Nov 2024, 1:42 pm |
