Creatures that are sexually dimorphic are typically polygamists,

>inb4 all Elves are submissive twigs that take constant rear poundings and all Dwarves all are stout bearded drunkards who constantly break beds

>>53622062
But that's literally true.

How are humans sexually dimorphic?

>>53622270
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism#Humans

>>53622270
Do you have any siblings or peers of the opposite gender and do you have to physically look up or down on them?

File: stop.png (19KB, 283x283px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 283x283px

>>53622003
>hey guys biology shit
>"Also general cryptobiology thread"

>>53622270
Sexual dimorphism is when males and females of a species have additional sex characteristics (such as engorged breasts in females, wider hips, etc.) in addition to the actual sex organs.

>>53622003
>So creatures such as humans and orcs tend towards harems

Except we don't. Most societies didn't too. Some did, but most didn't.

>>53622073

I know this is hard to understand for you sometimes anon, but your subjective opinion is not objective truth about the state of reality, or in this case fictional universes created for the purpose of playing games of make believe.

>>53622003
>Do your elfs and dwarves have sexual differences?
Other than what's common for humans, which they took from human cultures other than common gender roles, no.

Basically dwarf dudes and dudettes are free to do whatever they want, but when it comes down to it, dwarf ladies look after children. Usually though, they just get someone else more willing to do it if they don't want to.

Elves are a bunch of damn dirty hippies.

>>53623024

Actually speaking as a student of anthropology your actually wrong. It's a common misconception made my members of western societies, but our social model is not actually normal. We are what are considered by anthropologists to be W.E.I.R.D. (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) cultures. Because we live in these cultures we have a natural tendency to view the world through the lens of our cultural experiences and assume ours is normal, but this is not necessarily the case.

Take monogamy and polygamy. We assume that monogamy is the norm, because it is our cultural ideal. It is not, There are actually far more cultures that practice polygamy than monogamy, this just isn't necessarily apparent because the monogamous cultures (IE European cultures) have become widespread and exerted global influence. Polygamy remains a common practice in large portions of South America, and Africa, and some places in Asia.

Even monogamous cultures tend to practice what is referred to as serial monogamy, rather than true monogamy, where they routinely switch partners but are more or less faithful to the partner they are with at the time

tl;dr humans usually do actually, Europeans fight the tendency and don't.

>>53622003
Why are lions just so damn cool? I mean, look at them and soak up the awesome.

Also with the races I run polygamy or monogamy is entirely dependent on culture as opposed to race. Though, I run orcs as a manufactured race with controlled breeding.

>>53623245
>There are actually far more cultures that practice polygamy than monogamy

Europe: .7 billion
India: 1.3 billion
China: 1.4 billion
N America, Indonesia: .35 billion each
South America: .4 billion

That's over half the world right there, so even assuming EVERY culture in Africa, the middle east, southeast Asia, Russia, Australia, etc. was polygamous - which isn't remotely the case - the overwhelming balance of the world is monogamous.

Just because there may be a million little tribes in Paupau New Guinea, each with their own language, living with multiple wives in their loincloths and grass huts, does not mean polygamy is some great civilizational trend the west is too stupid to understand. And just because something is "exotic" or "foreign" to your eyes does not automatically make it superior to what you grew up with.

>>53623245
All I got form your post is
>Western models for society is pretty much way better than other societal models with the evidence being the global hegemony they have exerted.

>>53623245
You're a shitty student.

>>53623724
Well not entirely
You see even though biologically humans are more suited to polygamy, we really can't pull it off due to two things
> there are about the same amount of males then females. Lions kill other baby males to allow more females per males
> humans are intelligent and tend to be protective, we also have things like emotions

>>53623677
Counting the number of independently developed cultures is more relevant than how many people are in each culture.

Also, Indonesia is polygamist, so I'm not sure why you counted them for the monogamous.

>>53623793
How exactly is having a body that takes 12-18 years to mature "suited to polygamy"

The reported rate of infidelity here in the states sits at about 70% measured with a pretty large n=.

Calling us westerners monogamous might overstep the stats.

>>53623878
No it's not. Polygamy is legal in Indonesia and a man may take up to four wives, as allowed by Islam. Despite such legality, polygamy has faced some of the most intense opposition than any other nation with the majority consisting of Muslims. Additionally, Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world, but it's far from ''natural polygamist'' as you claim it to be.

>>53623920
because children can give consent

>>53624037
> Polygamy is legal in Indonesia, blah blah blah.

>>53624117
Yeah, blah blah is a petty good refutation of anon's points, anon. No need to dig up any pesky facts or arguments or anything.

>>53622270
>this nigga never never heard of titties

This thread/argument is shit because natural/unnatural arguments about humans are weird. You could simply make the argument that as a civilization advances naturally humans gravitate towards monogamy since it keeps society the most stable. In other words an advanced society would realize that unchecked monogamy can lead to revolts.

>>53624495
>Unchecked monogamy
Gosh I meant polygamy

>>53624340
I was as specific as the Wikipedia article they copied required me to be.

>>53624495
I never said monogamy is bad for society if anything it's best, however biologically you want to pass on your genes as much as possible and for humans polygamy is the best way for doing that

>>53623245
You make two grave mistakes.

Firstly, the actual number of civilizations if completely irrelevant, since the vast majority of people both dead and living have lived their lives monogamously. Just because there are a million, tiny, irrelevant societies that practice polygamy, does not mean that polygamy is the norm. They may be purely quantitively the majority, but that is completely irrelevant and is not merely a qualitative mistake, but a pretty bad statistic trick.

Second of all, even in most big, relevant civilizaitons, only the upper class had even the possibility of living polygamously, and yet in most middle eastern and indian and norse cultures, not even all of them did, and less and less did with increasing progression. The further a civilization advances, the more polygamy becomes something seen as abnormal and a mere privilege of a ruler. The chinese emperors had massive harmes, and so did the ottomans, but though technically allowed for everybody else in the realm, the number of people that did even amongst the elite is absolutely neligible. So yes, sure, you can boost your percentage of "polygamous" societies by counting those, but realistically, qualitatively, they really really aren't.

The reason for the moderate human sexual dimorphism lays in the earliest of early pre-human history of nomadic hunters and gatherers, where one male with many females was the norm. But this is even from before these pre-humans evolved into humans, before our normal social groups expanded to about ~150 people as the maximum group size.

So, this means that our sexual dimorphism isn't even because humans per se where largely polygamous, but because our ancestors were and there has not been sufficient evolutionary pressure or progress to change away from this. Even the earliest of hunter gatherer cultures where not purely or largely polygamous.

>>53624801
My suspicion is our ancestors were, based partly on the abnormally large human penis compared to other primates, a bunch of rapists.

>>53624765
That's a shit argument because the assumption you base it on isn't even true. You don't want to spread your genes as much as possible you god damn imbecile. Not every species is like fucking frogs. You want to pick a strategy that guarantees the best LASTING spread of your genes. Female Orcas and female humans alike loose their ability to reproduce at some point because their species takes forever to mature and has a low count of offspring, so if you die before your child reaches maturety it will perish, but if instead you concentrate your energy on helping your existing offspring survive, reproduce and helping your second generation offspring towards maturety, you have a bigger chance of your distributed genome to survive, making it the better reproductive strategy.

>>53624928
That might explain the prevalence of rape as a fetish.

>>53624801
>where one male with many females was the norm
Does ancient matriarchal society count as polygamist though?

>>53624983
First off, that is why I stated that polygamy is the best biological pathway for humans.
Monogamy is when you focus on one mate and that mates children. It's a focused strategy.

Sleeping around is the least likely to help you out. You produce lots of children and those children are likely to die out or be aborted.

Polygamy allows you to produce lots of children, and also allows you to care after your children and mates, allowing you to make lots of well adapted and survivable children

Monogamy is in no ways a bad strategy but not the best biologically, however it is the best for society

>>53625292
Splitting resources among multiple offspring is less likely to produce well adapted survivable children.

>>53622270
I know right? Human women are just as physically strong at human men after all.

>>53625292
>Monogamy is when you focus on one mate and that mates children. It's a focused strategy.
>Polygamy allows you to produce lots of children
By your own logic polygamy is a bad strategy.

On top of that most females in human harems never had children. They were often status symbols, used as servants or pawns in political games by their noble families.

Gotta love all the bullshit people are pulling out of their asses for this thread. Never change /tg/, you retarded manchildren who will argue for days about subjects you know nothing about, never change.

>>53624079
Not at all what I was talking about, the fact that humans are very co dependant to their parents for at least 13-15 years greatly inhibits our ability to be polygamist.

>>53625534
How the fuck do you figure?

>>53622003
All male elves have tiny micropenises that never get hard and can cum only from prostate stimulation. However, females can fuck just about anything and it will still result in a pureblooded elf.

The only way an elf can be conceived is when male cums from getting pounded in the ass and then rubs semen into female's vagina.

However, years of selective breeding has led male elves to be able to ejaculate only from prolonged pounding while watching their female counterparts fucked. So, many elves can go years without a release, as they are genetically predisposed to be straight (a cruel joke of nature). Explains why they are so stuck-up now.

>>53622003
My elf accidentally ended up polygamous, or at least polyamorous, between the sheer amount of pussy the GM was throwing at him and him not being the kind of guy to say "I understand that you all want romance from me, but I'm going to shunt you aside in favor of this other chick that asked first".

As far as dimorphism, female dorfs haven't come up yet and I personally assume they're some sort of asexual race that sort of just arises from stone a la Steven Universe Kindergardens but as the sole elven player in the game, and thus the utmost authority on how the fuck these homebrew elves work, they have similar dimorphisms as humans, but more subtle. For example, female elves still have a good bit of extra hip to them, but their breasts are typically fairly smaller on average. Other attributes have been decided over a bit of an OOC joke that due to their universally slender frames and pretty selves, non-elves have trouble distinguishing the minor differences between males and females even when underclothed, or between family members. My character is a whole inch taller, has the smaller male hips, and their hair doesn't grow quite as long as their mother's, but is otherwise identical to her in every way past voice, mannerisms, and parts.

>>53624495
Gas the Chad's, beta uprising now!

>>53622003
>So creatures such as humans...tend towards harems
Depends on culture.

>>53625116
>ancient matriarchal

Literal meme.

>>53625116
I think it counts as mythical

>>53622117

Why do humans smile and show their teeth for laughing, sympathy, and other emphatic interactions? That his is terrifying to most animals. It says: "I'M GOING TO KILL YOU!"

>>53626872
>americans
>human

>>53624983
>You don't want to spread your genes as much as possible you god damn imbecile. Not every species is like fucking frogs. You want to pick a strategy that guarantees the best LASTING spread of your genes.
They are not incompatible, nothing stop you from making as many babies as possible and then focus your energy on what you judge the best children.
Letting babies die, while cruel from human standard, is normal in nature.

>>53626872
Apes do it too...

>>53626745
>>53626833
>what is the Venus of Willendorf

>>53627300
>>what is the Venus of Willendorf
a carving?

>>53622003
>Creatures that are sexually dimorphic are typically polygamists, creatures that lack sexual dimorphism are typically monogamists.
false premise

>>53623245

The only thing I gathered here is: I have a shitty leftist education.

>>53623245
Doesn't every culture think that their culture is the norm and that others are weird? You're acting like Western civilization is somehow uniquely self centered.

>>53622003
>Cool right?
No. You're trying to come up with an excuse to be cheating scum. Why do you need to convince others?

>>53623793
>Lions kill other baby males to allow more females per males
Lions don't kill THEIR young, they kill other males cubs so that they get to breed with lionesses sooner. Also first time i see anyone imply that they bang their own daughters and (spoiler)wanna hear more(/spoiler).

>>53627884
Fvcking brackets.

>>53625116
>>53625373
Might work if you run full gatherers dependent economy with maybe some hunting on side. Once you shift to method that puts males too high in hierarchy it falls apart.

>>53627300

>>53627610
Of fertility goddess. Not every woman is capable of birthing and nursing 6+ children.

>>53627987
a fertility goddess does not mean a society is matriarchal, unless you would argue the Mesopotamians and the Greeks were matriarchal?

>>53622003
>Do your elfs and dwarves have sexual differences?

Our male elves have an animal like sheath for their dicks. The elf women's vagina is more circular.

For dwarves, they lack visible genitals and just have "the waste fountain" and females have the extra birthing chute that seals itself when not in use. Their fluid exchange happens mouth to mouth, ie deep kissing.

Orcs are oddly exactly like humans except their females have 4 nipples (though only two breasts).

>>53622003
>dwarves
Since swarves usually live in mountains it makes sense that they practice fraternal polyandry, where a single women is married to 2 or more brothers.

>>53627987
>Of fertility goddess
Or more likely of fire keeping old woman.
So more Westa of Willendorf.

>>53622062
I like to stack elves in that heavy armor for the fun of it.

Still make it gaudy and flamboyant enough to still look seemingly elvish, but still intimidating.

>>53628064
>the waste fountain

Just when I thought dwarves couldn't dig any lower, they hit the septic tank

>>53624037
>polygamy is legal in indonesia
>but some people don't like it!
>this means Indonesia isn't polygamist

Anon...

>>53624928
>My suspicion is our ancestors were, based partly on the abnormally large human penis compared to other primates, a bunch of rapists.

You are correct, and the human penis and speed at which we orgasm, is evidence of this. As well as our lack of a penis bone.

Yeah, I listened to that public radio broadcast too. It was interesting.

>>53625506
>Gotta love all the bullshit people are pulling out of their asses for this thread. Never change /tg/, you retarded manchildren who will argue for days about subjects you know nothing about, never change.
It's decent bait, though. It's only a short step from
>remember guys, most dudes are pounding 3-4 pussies at once
to
>tfw no gf

OP knows what he's doing.

>>53629406
>>53627987
>>53627610
>>53627300
>>53626745
>>53626833
Ok so world building idea. I know in real life that matriarchies didn't not real. But, for a setting

What if you had a Matriarchy where the ruling class were actual MATRONS, not 'WOMEN'. Like, women who had produced multiple children and had possibly passed child bearing age already.

Build on the foundations of mystic bullshit about the sacred feminine and motherly wisdom, combined with the supposedly inherent wisdom of the older and more experienced. In order to be eligible for high ranking social posistions you need to be a woman age 40 or higher, and have birthed at least 2 or 3 kids (more always being better).

Young women and those who have not yet hit their baby quota are juniors and considered for all intents and purposes, just regular citizens.

So men still dominate military and business, women are still basically for breeding and home tending, and the middle aged and older form the upper half of the social caste filling out managerial and governmental roles.

What would that be? A Methusalarchy with feminist leanings?

>>53628064
>Their fluid exchange happens mouth to mouth, ie deep kissing

No wonder they think humans and elves are so degenerate, they go around face fucking constantly.

I like that your magic realm is perverse and bizzare enough to pass off as just weird enough to not be magical realm

File: A742855B-1042-4EF0-9326-A47C392140B3.pdf (1017KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

1017KB, 1x1px

>>53627644
Well, yes. Remember that most animals are invertebrates, for starters; I can't think of any spiders that would qualify as either polygamous or monogamous, but they have some serious sexual dimorphism going on. What you're talking about is a tetrapod thing.

>>53623245
>the monogamous cultures (IE European cultures) have become widespread and exerted global influence.

>tl;dr humans usually do actually
If you wanted to say that human cultures, assuming that they arise in some vaguely independent way, wind up being polygamous more often than they do monogamous, you might be right, for the conditions which characterized the last ten thousand years. If you meant to say that humans are normally polygamous *right now,* you would be wrong, because monogamous cultures presently dominate the globe in terms of power and numbers.

>>53625292
>polygamy is the best biological pathway for humans.
It's not, if it lost out to monogamy. There's no "but it's best for society" distinction here; evolution doesn't care.

I also think your information may be out of date (see attached).

>>53622003
Human harems are exceptions, not the rule

>>53627300
one of a kind figure made by a disgusting fetishist

File: 1413586812705.png (53KB, 237x200px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 237x200px

>>53623245
Traditional European culture is SUPERIOR to others, because societies that practice monogamy are far, far more stable than ones that practice polygamy.
Polygamous societies result in a select few males acquiring all the females leaving a large group of males with ZERO prospects of reproduction and thus ZERO stake in the future of the society or it's preservation, which leads to fertile grounds for internal strife and revolution. Monogamous societies result in a state where MOST men have reasonable prospect at reproducing because roughly speaking, each man has an access to a female partner and thus can found a family, which ensures that they too have a stake in the society.

Sexual liberation of women is one of the reasons why west is in the decline, because we are rapidly descending towards a state where harems form around few powerful men, while the rest of the men are left with nothing.

>>53629744
>a tetrapod thing.
Even then it's not true. Most tetrapods are just polyamorous, including species with little to no sexual dimorphism like most rodents, pigeons, reptiles without noticeable dimorphism, hippos or ring-tailed lemurs

>>53623245
Also an anthropology student reporting in, you're full of shit. Polygamy may be accepted in the majority of cultures, but in almost all polygamous cultures the vast majority of people haven't actually engaged in polygamous marriage.

Humans just don't have the gender ratio for polygamous marriage to be widely practiced unless the majority of one gender didn't have partners.

There's a significant difference between 'the majority of human cultures accept polygamy, although the majority of people never practice it' and 'humans are a naturally polygamous species'.

File: High Matriarch Teersa.jpg (1MB, 1920x3413px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x3413px

>>53629582
Anon... you've recreated the starting culture of the protagonist for Horizon Zero Dawn. Though the women are still allowed within all areas of culture, even business and military (what little there is for the Nora considering they are isolationist).

>>53629832
Assuming of course that only the men are polyamorous.

>>53629832
t. sexually frustrated male

File: index.jpg (12KB, 257x196px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 257x196px

"Screeew yoou, men know when they are in charge!"

>>53630036
what if you dubbed over the audio with Fred telling it like it is and Wilma sounding like a whiny cunt?

>>53629956
Women in general, are more willing to share male partners between each other, than men are willing to share female partners.
Reason for that is simple: Women always know if the child is theirs, whereas men have no such certainty.

>>53630004
Not an argument.

>>53630047
They'd be ripping off All In The Family instead of The Honeymooners

>>53629832
It's cute that you think you wouldn't be incel if those darn girls weren't so mean. You'd still be alone even if society was like the idealized version if the 50s that existed only in your head. You're a genetic wasteland and you not breeding is the goal, not a problem.

File: identifying arguments with stefan.jpg (230KB, 598x792px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 598x792px

>>53630071
Nice projection famalam, but I see nothing addressing the point I made.

>>53630088
I don't have to, retard.

>>53629912
You know, I was pretty sure that was the case, but I wasn't certain. (I'm an invertebrate guy.)

>>53623604
I think all should be half-determined by species and half by culture. All elves/orcs/whatever should have some traits that make them different from humans and shape their different societies.

Also natural instincts should be a determinant factor for culture (amongst other factors like geography).

Sex and gender are entirely different things in elves - sex works similar to humans, gender is assigned based on the time of birth (daytime/nighttime).

Sunborn elves are builders, hunters, tradesmen scholars, politicians, spellcasters, warriors. What passes for "male" professions in patriarchal human societies. Generally, things that require you to be outside the home, i.e. out in the sun.

Moonborn elves take care of children and the ill, prepare meals, grow food and medical herbs, produce art (namely music) and delve in trades such as knitting, which can be done at home.

>>53623245
>Because we live in these cultures we have a natural tendency to view the world through the lens of our cultural experiences and assume ours is normal, but this is not necessarily the case.

As a cultural anthropologist, gotta point out that EVERY culture views the world that way. Ethnocentrist world views are inherent to human existence.

>>53629832
You sound kind of desperate to find a man.

>>53629832
>"If this was still the 1950s, all those whores wouldn't be flocking around Chad, and I could finally get laid"
>"Muh degenerates

File: salty.png (641KB, 600x826px) Image search: [Google]

641KB, 600x826px

>>53630004
>>53630071
>>53630161
>>53630190

>all this salt
>no counterarguments in sight.

>>53624928
>>53625088
>>53629513

Why are human females so shit at dealing with being raped, then? I mean, I don't want to be a cunt about it but other animals clearly don't give as much of a shit.

File: Sensible.gif (992KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

992KB, 250x250px

>>53624495
>unchecked monogamy
Thanks, Anon.

>>53630210
Ehhh, have a (You) since you're doing good mate. Seriously, I find threads like this hilarious as shit, since it's salter then the dead sea in here. Fucking retards. Matriarchs exist, but matriarchal societies are fantasy.

>>53628098
Why would that make sense? Because one human mountain culture does it?

File: Sure is..gif (3MB, 300x252px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 300x252px

>>53629832
Try harder you sexually frustrated numpty.

>>53630357
That's not an argument. The only communication allowed are things that directly address his points in a very narrow definition that he himself defines.

>>53630221
Because animals are dumb and most possess the emotional range of a soup spoon. Also most animals are far less able to deal with/heal from injuries than humans, so an enraged female attempting a mangling is a much more serious threat. Also because western influenced societies are largely terrible at dealing with mental health issues. Or is that most societies? I dunno.

>>53630405
You're right, it's not an argument. It's an insult. I'm not going to bother trying to engage someone that hilariously wrong/committed to the troll because it's not worth my time.
>The only communication allowed are things that directly address his points in a very narrow definition that he himself defines.
Friend where exactly do you think you are? Let me give you a hint; it's a hive of scum and villainy. Anything is allowed here if the mods aren't paying attention.

>>53630437
Not an argument.

>>53629776
>one of a kind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_figurines

File: We're out of time..png (169KB, 450x336px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 450x336px

>>53630471

>>53627749
It used to be true but as said by >>53623724 you're underestimating the influence exerted by Western civilization.

>>53628011
>a fertility goddess does not mean a society is matriarchal
In a pantheon? You're right, it doesn't.
When she's the only deity worshipped? There's a good chance it does.

I always pictured elves as promiscuous, with no real concept of marriage. They might settle down with one partner for a while, but eventually their fey natures and long lifespans will result in them going their separate ways. On the other hand, the concept of monogamous dwarves and polygamous orcs makes perfect sense to me. Orcish sexual relationships are conquest-based, where if you're strong enough to claim a mate then they're yours whatever the prior relationship was. Meanwhile, dwarves are extremely rigid, with years of codified courtship rituals necessary to ensure fruitful matches.

>>53629832
>Traditional European culture is SUPERIOR to others, because societies that practice monogamy are far, far more stable than ones that practice polygamy.
Are you retarded or are you implying monogamy was restricted to the west?

>>53630644
We have no proof she's the only deity, or that she's a deity to begin with. It's normal for a cthonic deity to receive the kind of offerings that will survive to be found by modern archeologists.

File: BATTLE BROTHAS.jpg (22KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x360px

>>53630731
Watch out mate, you can't be posting something like that in here in response to that guy. Don't you know that only arguments are allowed?

>>53630644
>>53630750
Like many prehistoric artifacts, the cultural meaning of these figures may never be known.

File: 1102px-Inglehart-Welzel_2015.jpg (157KB, 1102x900px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1102x900px

>>53629582
>I know in real life that matriarchies didn't not real.
Matriarchies have existed and continue to exist, you just haven't heard of them.

>>53629832
>we are rapidly descending towards a state where harems form around few powerful men, while the rest of the men are left with nothing.
Do you have any actual support for this assertion?

>>53624928
>>53629513
Human evolution is probably my least favorite subfield of evolutionary biology, because non-specialists who are interested in it have often overdosed on Desmond Morris, but I'm pretty sure this stuff is seriously out of date.

If you google "primate baculum," for example, you quickly get a recent result-- from Scientific American, based on research published in Proceedings of the Royal Society-- suggesting that we lack a baculum because... we made a transition to monogamy. You also learn that the speed at which humans orgasm is actually far slower than most other primates, which copulate for only a few minutes. (Like, two or three. Fifteen seconds for bonobos.)

>>53630583
It's not even that; the current thinking is that we made a large-scale transition to monogamy hundreds of years ago, although human society may have been largely polygamous before that point.

The industrial revolution has piled another major change on top of that, though! As the groupings in the attached graph illustrate, the prosperity created by industrialization has led to a shift in values from survival towards self-expression and from traditional towards secular-rational. This is part of what's meant when psychologists or anthropologists claim that industrialized nations are WEIRD. But, in this context, the dominance of industrialized democracies is hugely important, and the WEIRD criticism, while valid, isn't especially consequential.

>>53630071
I came in here to make fun of that poster but you already did a fantastic job.

>>53622270
males have beards and chest hair. larger skeletons. Females have boobs and wider pelvis with a smaller skeleton. do you live in a cave or are you some weird alien NEET?

>>53626872
>smiling is terrifying
I don't think it's that uncommon with social mammals. Dogs definitely smile (at least the breeds that have enough muscles in their face to do so. Sorry, Sad Basset Hound).

>>53627749
>You're acting like Western civilization is somehow uniquely self centered.
Well, being self-centered isn't unique... we just do it better than everybody else!

>>53631508
Dogs are polluted by human interaction. they've learned to read and express social cues in ways unlike wolves and more like people

>>53630722
I've actually been thinking on this since the thread began and I do believe that dwarfs being monogamous doesn't make much sense.
They are a low population group that is generally constantly battling orcs, goblins, ratmen, drow, mind-flayers, bulletes, ect.
Their military is predominately male, and a large occupation is being miners, also predominately male. This means that assuming they follow the 50/50 gender of humanity there are going to be less men than women. So I agree with you, dwarves are extremely rigid, with codified courtship rituals, but they do it like fundy Mormons with ten wives. So young dwarves don't have much prospects except through surviving the mines or military, and the few old dwarves just sit in their comfy government and social posts breeding until they die.

File: found an error my dude.jpg (3KB, 83x50px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 83x50px

>>53630889
>muslim-majority countries are in italics

File: 1496675786789.jpg (1MB, 732x5000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 732x5000px

>>53622003

>>53622003
Why the fuck are you posting this bullshit here?
Congratulations on your top tier bait.

>>53622270
I'm willing to bet that they're not as sexually dimoprhic as we think they are, and that they greatly exaggerate the differences in their heads (like how we exaggerate differences between height) in order to make sure they mate with the right people. Also a lot of their sexual dimorphism is expressed through style and behavior- girls who dress like boys and don't have tits usually end up looking like boys. With facial structure differences it's so subtle you'd probably have to be human to tell which humans are male and which are female.

I wouldn't argue that they aren't sexually dimorphic, but with humans it's actually so subtle that they need huge fat sacks on the chest of half of their population and entirely different vocal pitches just to tell each other apart. We're not like anglerfish or something like that. Don't think you could say humans are in any sense "strongly" dimorphic and their strongest dimorphic features are cartoonish signals that serve few purposes other than to make up for their lack of other dimorphic features.

>>53623920
Time it takes to mature is factor of an entirely separate reproductive strategy. I think K- and R-selection is the proper term. One focuses on producing large amount of offspring, most of which will die but the weight of numbers ensures some will survive, while the other focuses on producing a few offspring but taking care to raise them until they're old enough to survive on their own. Humans or most other large animals that mature slowly fall in the latter group.

This doesn't have anything to do with monogamy or polygamy, though, as both reproductive strategies are found in monogamous and polygamous animals.

>>53630889
>Matriarchies have existed and continue to exist, you just haven't heard of them.
I was under the assumption that while matrilinear societies are not particularly rare overall, matriarchical societies practically do not exist, barring a very few possible cases, like maybe some really ancient (pre-imperial) Chinese cultures.
The difference is that in a proper matriarchical society women should hold all power, which is usually not accomplished due to military power quite naturally falling under the control of men due to average man being better suited for being a soldier. Matrilinearity simply means that bloodline is considered to pass from mother to daughter (i.e. in a patrilinear society when the ruler dies, their eldest son becomes the king and marries the daughter of some other rules who becomes to queen, while in a matrilinear society the eldest daughter of the ruler becomes the queen and married the son of some other ruler who becomes the king). This does have the advantage of making the legitimacy of an heir a lot easier to prove.

>>53623063
>subjective opinion
Fuck off mate, for all biological intents humans ARE polygamous. Our closest relatives are the bonobos (literal "fuck everything" apes) and our dicks are literally shaped in the optimal way for removing the semen of other men. What makes Western civilization (which, for the culturally provincial among us, isn't the only civilization on this fucking planet) monogamous is culture, not nature. The Catholic Church and other institutions actively supressed human sexuality for religious relating to both doctrine and social benefits. This is why the sexual revolution is leading to the decay and eventual implosion of our culture: because said culture simply cannot cope with human sexuality. Human biological evolution is literally millennia behind our social development.

Orcs are effectively what humans are if you remove all that civilization and all that delay of (sexual) gratification: violent, tribal, licentious brutes who care only about sleeping, eating and fucking.

Yes /pol/, we know the similarities to black people are obvious.

>>53633745
>Time it takes to mature is factor of an entirely separate reproductive strategy. I think K- and R-selection is the proper term. One focuses on producing large amount of offspring, most of which will die but the weight of numbers ensures some will survive, while the other focuses on producing a few offspring but taking care to raise them until they're old enough to survive on their own. Humans or most other large animals that mature slowly fall in the latter group.

This also doesn't take into account that the same species might use both strategies in different situations based around external factors. Humans have and still use both strategies.

>>53623063
Thoroughly rustled

Or as you probably prefer
>triggered

>>53633893
You know, calling us similar to bonobos yet also calling us violent brutes is pretty ironic

>>53623245
>akchually
If you're passing your classes you have shitty teachers.

More likely you're the autist who has to be "managed"

>>53634058
>Humans have and still use both strategies
except humans are pretty extreme K-specialists.
Having 5 kids with three baby mommas is not r strategy

>>53623878
>Counting the number of independently developed cultures is more relevant than how many people are in each culture.

That's probably the dumbest post on 4chan right now.

>>53629832
>Polyandry doesn't exist
>Failing this hard at anthropology

I would like to retract my previous statement.

>>53634103
Chimpanzees are also similar to bonobos, in fact bonobos are a chimpanzee subspecies (I think?). Chimpanzees are also the only ones other than humans to engage in "warfare".

There's nothing ironic about it, mate. We have disgusting traits from both of our closest relatives, but we also have the reason to supress those traits.

>>53634383
>in fact bonobos are a chimpanzee subspecies
They are they also radically differ in their mating habits from other chimps, which is what he's getting at

>>53634103
>>53634383
And then there's also this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3353342/Bonobos-not-all-peace-and-free-love.html

>>53633893
>and our dicks are literally shaped in the optimal way for removing the semen of other men
Boy you fell for some meme there

>>53634058
K- and R-selection is tied to biology and, aside from some rre cases where the animals can change reproductive methods based on environmental conditons, can't be altered. Humans produce few children at a time (normally one, rarely two, and more so rarely that it doesn't really need to be considered) and it takes years for a baby to survive on its own, so we are extreme K-specialists. A man sleeping around with multiple women and leaving them to take care of children doesn't make humans R-specialists because somebody still needs to spend considerable time and effort if those children are to reach adulthood (one male maring with multiple females who then take care of the offspring is how polygamous K-specialists, like lions, work).

R-specialists usually produce multiple offspring at once, which then mature very quickly and need minimal or no care from their parents. On the less extreme end you have most rodents, which give birth to litters and do needed to nurse the offspring but only for a short time before they can survive on their own. Probably the most extreme is the ocean sunfish, which lays 10 000 000 eggs on average and leaves them floating around as plankton, relying on statistics ensuring that one or two offspring manages to avoid getting eaten by something for long enough to get so big that few things will threaten it.

>>53634476
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/147470490400200105
Explain the meme when it's a hypothesis taken seriously by the scientific community.

>>53629832
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OubHHtNM94s

File: OP fag 1.png (387KB, 493x639px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 493x639px

This thread fucking sucks.

Who in their right mind thought any good would come from this?

>>53634461
Oh no, they eat monkeys. How terrible.
Call me when they start organizing hit squads to castrate outsiders.

>>53634538
>taken seriously by the scientific community.
have you seen that source?

>>53634541
Not him, but it really IS all about the pussy. In fact, if there were ever men who didn't care about pussy, natural selection has filtered them out of the human gene pool. The entire basis of human reproduction are men willing to die for pussy, because there sure as fuck ain't any other benefits to associating with women.

>>53634538
To be fair, there are a great deal of absurd hypotheses that have been taken seriously at some point. R/K type reproduction for example has been criticized to the point of becoming irrelevent for decades, yet here we are treating it as immutable truth

>>53634591
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160317-do-bonobos-really-spend-all-their-time-having-sex

>“There are lots of males in zoos that are missing digits. There’s a male bonobo that’s actually missing the tip of his penis because the female has bitten it off,” she says. “This isn’t quite [in line] with the stereotype of them being peaceful.”

>HURR DURR B-BUT IT'S NOT AN OUTSIDER
So?
>HURR DURR BUT A CASTRATION IS REMOVING THE TESTICLES, NOT THE TIP OF THE PENIS
Your point?
>HURR DURR BUT IT'S A ZOO, THAT'S NOT REPRESENTATIVE
Only because within a zoo, women attain more power than in the wild. That does not change the fact that bonobos can be violent and are innately violent. They're not exactly the tree loving hippies that makes calling them brutal "ironic".

>>53629832
Oh and not like Europeans haven't had full retard moments before? Do I have to mention the troubles in Ireland that split out into great Britain during the 60's and 70's?

Dwarves reproduce asexually, through budding. This explains lack of female dwarves.

>>53634659
>R/K type reproduction for example has been criticized to the point of becoming irrelevent for decades
Sauce?

>>53634612
I know, remember reading something about how the US government predicts in regions violent instability in relation to economic instability and it essentually boils down to what Ray says in that video.

>>53634702
Huh, well ain't that something. Sounds like a blowjob gone horribly wrong

>>53634767
>The distinguishing feature of the r- and K-selection paradigm was the focus on density-dependent selection as the important agent of selection on organisms’ life histories. This paradigm was challenged as it became clear that other factors, such as age-specific mortality, could provide a more mechanistic causative link between an environment and an optimal life history (Wilbur et al. 1974;[21] Stearns 1976,[35] 1977[25]). The r- and K-selection paradigm was replaced by new paradigm that focused on age-specific mortality (Stearns, 1976;[35] Charlesworth, 1980[36]). This new life-history paradigm has matured into one that uses age-structured models as a framework to incorporate many of the themes important to the r–K paradigm.
—Reznick, Bryant and Bashey, 2002[6]

>>53629582
Extending this idea:
Only post-menopausal women can have social standing; everyone else is regarded as a child.
Relative standing is determined by number of children, ties are broken by (including grandchildren/excluding the deceased/treating multiple births as a single child). Regional variance?
Inter-generational marriages demonstrate leverage (since offspring would count differently for either side) whereas marriages at the same generation demonstrate firmer alliances.

>>53632525
wtf is this from?

>>53633893
I kind of hate it when I post a useful paper and nobody reads it. Just scroll up a bit, it's right there.

>Orcs are effectively what humans are if you remove all that civilization and all that delay of (sexual) gratification: violent, tribal, licentious brutes who care only about sleeping, eating and fucking.
Loads of evidence suggests otherwise. Humans actually cooperate to a degree that's hard to explain with game theory. There's violence, yes, but "licentious brutes" we are not.

>>53633745
On reflection, I think you're right; it's matrilineal societies I was thinking of.

>>53634538
This shit is basically why other evolutionary biologists often take a very dim view of evo psych.

>>53634612
>In fact, if there were ever men who didn't care about pussy, natural selection has filtered them out of the human gene pool.
It turns out that gay people exist.

>>53634659
>>53634767
>>53634902
I was hoping someone would point this out. Good job, anon.

>>53638088
>It turns out that gay people exist.
Of course they exist, but the phrase "blame straights for gays" has some founding, at least while ignoring the sciences of artificial insemination and/or a surrogate womb if a homo couple does feel the need to pass on their genes instead of adopting.

File: bbaf7b887d4da5c438ffc493c68d9fd921405f88d1b1674539846006d2f2c973.jpg (34KB, 625x276px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 625x276px

>>53634612
>no other benefits to associating with women
Somehow I doubt that your genes would last very long.
Just kidding, unwillingness to collaborate with ~50% of our species seems like a brilliant strategy!

>>53630221
They're not, generally. Your assertion only applies to that failed experiment that we call western civilization.

>>53622003
Humans are like barely dimirphous

>>53633893
t. sexually frustrated misanthrope who has read none of the thread.

>>53633287
>girls who dress like boys and don't have tits usually end up looking like boys

They look like FEMENINE boys. Also the tits if is a very big if.

>>53639118
So you're telling me that non-western human females easily deal with being raped?

>>53640906
Much moreso, yeah.

>>53640276

except that's bullshit because even early humans had a concept of marriage.

>>53640939
We know this because of evidence those humans left behind. If they were in a position to leave behind evidence, they were civilized. The circle has been completed. Only utter and total savages, or if we're being generous nomads, leave behind no evidence of their existence.

>>53641192
>blame straights for gays
Wait, what? I'm not sure what this means.

Last I looked (which was a long time ago, and things may have changed) we didn't have much in the way of evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality. The best lead we had was developmental: it appears to have something to do with the level of testosterone you're exposed to in utero.

Can somebody post the elf sexual dimorphism screencap that ends with "the female elf has a bigger penis"?

File: elves.png (26KB, 532x531px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 532x531px

>>53645914
I don't have it, but now I want to see it. In the meantime, have this.

>>53622003
>It's another anthropology thread

Nigger its a game of pretend. You don't need to find excuses to put your fetishes in your game

>>53630889
>Poland
>Latin-america/African Islamic

Literally kurwa what.

>>53649409
But it leads to more satisfying climaxes

>>53634258
I agree with that anon that the many independent cultures that popped up tell us more about baseline humanity than the few dominant cultures today.

Like, we know industrialization is the trend for the vast majority of the human population (that isn't already industrialized) but it's not like this observation is more relevant for understanding how humans evolved or what they evolved to be than the observation that humans, for most of their existence, tended to live as hunter-gatherers in relatively small (100-300 people) close-knit tribes. The second observation tells us more about our basic psychological needs and wants as a specie.

>>53622310
Up
>mfw manlet

>>53634258
>>53650846
Ha redeemed! Although the dumbest post on 4chan is possibly the most noteworthy thing I could do in my life.

>>53640276
>>53640939

It's bullshit for a large number of reasons. For a start, hunter-gatherer societies do tend to be fairly monogamous. The cost child-rearing was distributed in these tribes but not because "the entire tribe was responsible for taking care of the women and children"; it was because of the simple truth that cooperation frees up hands for other tasks. If you only need two women to spend the day looking after the village's children, it frees up the other women to gather food (which, in modern hunter-gatherer societies, represents the majority of calories; forage, not meat) or prepare it, or to make clothes, or shelters, or any of the thousand other tasks that early nomadic and semi-nomadic life required.

Seriously, there is so much bullshit in this, and it completely ignores so much of human history and actual archaeology.

Marriage evolved over time from a fairly common monogamous structure of pair-bonding into formal arrangements with the development of the idea of property, not out of some pre-ordained Malthusian understanding.

>>53622062
fpbp

Aren't humans considered, in relation to the rest of the animal kingdom, to have quite low sexual dimorphism? Birds often have a brown female and a ALL THE COLORS! male, just as an example. I think even the size difference in chimpanzees between males and females is significantly more than between human sexes—something about our society slowly reducing the need for gender-linked behaviors and roles. If this is true, if humans do have particularly low sexual dimorphism, doesn't that alone negate OP's assertion?

>>53632525
source?