I really love this Y chromosome tree found here.
Technically there’s just one race because all humans are part of the African clad which is why you often hear the cliche “we’re all Africans under the skin”. Nonetheless, there are three main morphologies corresponding to major evolutionary grades: Negroids (the first four populations pictured), Caucasoids (the next two, splitting off Negroids) and Mongoloids (the last two, splitting off Caucasoids)
One can seen how Rushton would have looked at trees like this and became convinced evolution is progressive. As the tree goes from left to right, the haplogroups become younger (although we could orient it so goes from right to left) and descended from more splits. At the bottom of the tree we have the bushmen who are believed to have absolutely colossal sexual characteristics (consistent with Rushton’s theory that less advanced populations are more r selected).
A better view of the haplogroups is seen here:
Pumpkin Person 
“Mongoloids (the last two, splitting off Caucasoids)”
I think they separate “simultaneously” (lacking a better term to use), no?
Like it’s not “mongoloids separate in the last” but ” the separation between mongoloids and caucasoids was one of the last”.
It’s hard to tell from the top diagram but if the bottom diagram had pictures, it appears (at least as measured by the Y chromosome) that Caucasoids are a clade within the Mongoloid clade and thus split from them, rather than they both split from each other. However iirc mitochondrial DNA shows opposite results. I would love to see a reconstruction of the last common ancestor of Caucasoids and Mongoloids to see which race it most resembled.
Puppy has been reading this chart wrong for years. Mongloids aren’t ‘genetically superior’, they just branched off as an adaptation to their environment.
Your so dumb you think those statements are mutually exclusive
But if east asians are “genetically superior” so black africans are “genetically inferior” to everyone??
If you believe that evolution is progressive, then you would expect older lineages, older morphologies, to be inferior in MOST CASES, however so many scientists deny it’s progressive.
They are. If a human in an adaptation evolved gills in reaction to an aquatic environment, puppy would say thats genetic superiority.
No I’d just say that’s the exception that proves the rule.
I believe it can be progressive and is often seeing in that way. I think out of africa theory could be a possible evidence of comparatively older lineage of subsaharian africans but call them “genetically inferior”… Would be the same as calling an older plant species inferior to a newer one. Even thought i find excessive labelling people as genetically inferior because human individuals tend to be quite complex specially in the excepcional cases, people with higher mutational load expressed throught chronic diseases & disorders would be more likely to be classified as such not by race criterium.
Would be the same as calling an older plant species inferior to a newer one
Well if you believe in progress, it works on plants too. Most people would consider a flower superior to a leaf and flowers likely evolved from leaves.
But about the basics of adaptation, simpler or archaic plants adapts well as the complex ones and even better if they have predominated.i believe in evolution also as progressive (it can be regressive and stagnated too) but i also believes in multiple perspectives comparative and analytical approach in which Both primarily contradictory statements can be true only if for their respective perspectives: subsaharian africans as reminiscent archaic human phenotypes and also behaviorally, on avg, but adaptatively capable as other racial groups specially in more natural environments. I can’t see huge difference between saami people and black african tribes in terms of adaptativeness. That’s why comparing peoples on “still” semi nomadic hunter gatherers life style or mostly descendants of this group with predominantly “civilized” peoples seems like comparing apples with oranges, possible if they are both fruits but imperfectly. In terms of IQ saami seems scoring the same as nordics and finns but i think there is some recent political reasons to explain why, lots of forced or directed intermarriage with non saamis??
My opinion.
Saami are also very near to other nordic and finn populations, different than inuit who have lived in significant isolation. It’s more impressive the avg IQ around 90 for them than the 100’s IQ for saami (or for the groups/individuals who were tested).
Puppy doesn’t get it. If evolution was as progressive as he says there would only be 1 optimum species on planet earth.
Technology is progressive. Is there only one optimum car?
Technology and evolution aren’t the same. We don’t have technology from 2000 years ago co-existing with today.
Glass is still around. It was invented 4000 years ago.
chopsticks are still used in china invented three thousand years ago.
Look tech is progressive and items and tools from thousands of years ago for the most part arent used. Evolution allows single celled organisms to co-exist with human beings.
We also had the dinosaurs by the way and they were knocked out by a meteor and the whole cycle started again.
If you were correct, evolution would always end up in humans when I’m not sure thats the case.
Well if dinosaurs had not gone extinct, some believe a reptile humanoid would have evolved
Some go further and believe they actually did.
https://www.discovery.com/exploration/Advanced-Civilization-Silurian-Hypothesis
He is talking about modern technology.
So youre telling me you would rather believe in secret reptilian humanoids rather than face the fact that dinosaurs were the dominant species on earth and looked to stay that way.
Now I’m just saying that if dinosaurs were still around, they would have likely improved over the last 65 million years
Philosopher yea i agree. That’s basically Gould’s Rewind the Tape argument in Full House and Wonderful Life.
peepee: serena’s husband is handsome n sheeeit.
mugabe: WRONG! serena’s husband is gay n sheeeit. sad.
https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/tennis-talk-with-scott-joplin-anna-kournikova-and-the-williams-sisters/2872745
Evolution is progressive… obviously things tend to perfect themselves over time. That is literally the point of natural selection. And since organisms are not just being naturally selected for their specific environments, but the earth or environments in general (as that is the superset of any specific environment), evolution is progressive.
Excellent comment, especially the last sentence. That’s the part so many can’t grasp.
Natural selection isn’t a mechanism. (Fodor’s argument)
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/07/22/natural-selection-is-not-an-explanatory-mechanism/
Evolution isn’t progressive. (Gould’s argument)
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/04/14/evolutionary-progress-goulds-full-house-argument/
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2021/04/02/evolutionary-progress/
Contra RR, evidence that evolutions is indeed progressive:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.70.7.1936
Evidence that evolution is progressive continues to accumulate:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12368228_A_Simple_Model_of_Unbounded_Evolutionary_Versatility_as_a_Largest-Scale_Trend_in_Organismal_Evolution
I don’t see how either of those refutes Gould’s main argument in Full House which I have reconstructed:
P1 The claim that evolutionary “progress” is real and not illusory can only be justified iff organisms deemed more “advanced” outnumber “lesser” organisms.
P2 There are more “lesser” organisms (bacteria/insects) on earth than “advanced” organisms (mammals/species of mammals).
C Therefore evolutionary “progress” is illusory.
Both arguments in both papers can be simply stated: There is “selection for” versatility. And as McShea has shown, and no one has refuted, there is no general trend in complexity.
Apparently Vermeij is blind since the age of 3. Pretty amazing.
P1 The claim that evolutionary “progress” is real and not illusory can only be justified iff organisms deemed more “advanced” outnumber “lesser” organisms.
This premise is false. The mean and median level of advancement could be increasing even while the majority remain primitive, because primitive by definition was the starting point. For example if your lawn starts out long, and you cut a quarter of it, it still remains mostly long despite the fact that you’ve made progress. Now Gould’s drunkard walk argument was that any increase in mean progress is really just selection for diversity, not progress per se, but it’s worth noting that there’s been no increase in terrestrial biodiversity in 66 million years so that can’t explain it.
https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-magazine/evolution-biodiversity-ever-increasing-or-did-it-hit-ceiling#:~:text=The%20traditional%20view%20is%20that,diversity%20now%20than%20ever%20before.
Nothing you’ve said nor the link you provided shows that P1 is false—if anything, the article goes against the claims of evolutionary progress. “Progress” implies a directional change toward a “better” state. But it’s of course a value-laden term. Think about what P1 actually says. My argument is quite obviously sound. This article is solid on the matter.
https://www.sapiens.org/biology/evolution-march-of-progress/
“Now I’m just saying that if dinosaurs were still around, they would have likely improved over the last 65 million years”
Certainly?? I don’t think so. It’s not certain they would. Non-flying dinossaurs already reached their appex, of course, before the Chicxulub mass extinction event and based on their own evolutionary path. Today seems birds are aviary dinossaur’s descendents that survived from this mass extinction and they really don’t look progressively improved in size, power and dominance. This is evolution too because is not just natural selection that has a role on species adaptation and transformation but also extrinsic factors like extreme events.
“P1 The claim that evolutionary “progress” is real and not illusory can only be justified iff organisms deemed more “advanced” outnumber “lesser” organisms.
P2 There are more “lesser” organisms (bacteria/insects) on earth than “advanced” organisms (mammals/species of mammals).
C Therefore evolutionary “progress” is illusory.”
How is it that a good argument? Just because simple organisms continue to exist (even though they also change and adapt) doesn’t mean that evolution is not progressive, when we see the most powerful and adapted species like homo sapiens not arising until the present time.
The human brain, which is conscious and has intentionality as RR always states, and has language, would seem to be the most complex of all evolutionary developments, and humans dominate the earth, both in numbers and sheer ability to change the world. Human complexity and power is unforeseen by any species before.
We have extremely complicated cultures and technology, and if you see any analogues between culture/tech and evolution, even that is proof.
by rr argument, no humans should exist. (not even mammals, lizards or vertebrates only bacteria)
no humans should be more intelligent than other humans.
smart animals should not outcompete the dumb disabled ones.
nitch denial
Look, puppy just wants to say that east asians are superior. Thats basically it. Evolution is perhaps progressive in the very long run but the time lapse intra species for humans is too small to say east asians are superior. Puppy just has this equation in his head that says anything that branches off later = superior and he literally computes it by how much later they branch off. Hes an idiot.
Evolution is perhaps progressive in the very long run but the time lapse intra species for humans is too small to say east asians are superior.
Correct. We can’t say categorically that they’re superior because even assuming they’re more evolved, the correlation between evolution & progress is too small. However it is an interesting piece of evidence.
If we use specially the “cultural achievement” criterium, so east asians were “superior” when they achieved highest standard of civilization “too early” and it slowly burn out or stagnate since then, when the center of the greatest “cultural achievements” defitively changed from Middle East and North Africa to Europe (here totally despising the negative achievements and the fact that most of middle east civilizations were made by local caucasoids). A hypothetical anthropologists of the future would tell based on the archeological evidence of today or of 70, 200, 400 years ago which group of humans or collectively speaking did one of the bigggest achievements. But i understand why so many above avg people are afraid to tell this truth. Because there are many people anxious to take this truth to themselves and start to explicitly believing they are racially and then culturally “superior” to others, just an oversimplistic and self centered way to interpret this intrincate stuff. The same way doesnt make sense blame most of current whites to something that happened when they weren’t alive like “colonialism” and “slavery” it also doesn’t make sense give them all the credit to mostly individual achievements or that were done by individual geniuses and that were made before they (current white people) were born, even with geniuses today. I still can think in collective achievements like raise and sustain a highly developed country, but it doesn’t solve the oversimplism of this kind of interpretation because structural, geopolitical and historical factors also need to be take into account. So the human factor (cognitive, cultural “capital”) is one of the biggest factors but still just one that helps to develop a country. Biggest example today is North Korea.
sadly…
sadly…
Serenas husband looks like the type of guy that would watch her fucking another dude.
“(consistent with Rushton’s theory that less advanced populations are more r selected)”
Originally, r-selected populations are pioneers in new niches colonization while k-selected are more time adapting or specializing in their environments. Novel and older environments in adaptive terms are relative?? Novel is not how the time a given population is adapting or living in an environment but how adaptable a population is to its environment? If a population don’t master its environment, environmental circumstances will determine population’s evolution and adaptation (r-selected)??
they STRETCH their labia fucktard!
just like some women lengthen their necks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neck_ring
or make their feet small. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_binding
the very small % of women whose labia are close to that naturally are all caucasoid. look at porn. south asian women and european women specifically. porn has very little representation of MENAs because islam.
black women don’t have monster vulvas or clits.
Your comments are so bizarre sometimes.
I prefer little vulvas (2023), new hollywood movie, lol.
they’re trying to make their lady junk look like a BUTT.
because women are just gay men without a Y chromosome.
OBVIOUSLY!
Oscarssowhite is trending again because a white woman came from relative obscurity to get a nomination while the black women in all those dumb black people movies didnt get anything. So stupid. They cant just be happy that they made those dumb black movies in the first place. Till is a joke. Such a stupid concept to make a movie about Emmet Till.
Everything has to be equally represented with these people… regardless of talent or ability. Because if it were taken seriously that talent in movies could be distributed unequally among different races, they might have to take seriously that talent in overall brain function could be distributed unevenly.
This is not even taking into account that blacks be less than 13 percent yo, and so should be only around 1/8 of the oscars anyway.
They can’t do math and yet we are supposed to take their perfectly equal talent seriously.
Blacks are well known for their narcism and self centredness in HBD circles. Will Smith won the oscar last year and now they want another black to win. These people are grifters.
Hey Pumpkin. What is Petey Greene’s IQ? No way it ain’t _sky high_!
Bruh those are just haplogroups lol. C2 carrying Mongolians and C1b Carrying Australians cluster closer than either do with O2 carrying Chinese on that metric. Its only useful for ascertaining population movement and mixture at most.
maternal line H
paternal line R
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sackler_family
Only italian mafia exists…
Hol’ up, but my Y-chromosomal haplogroup is R and my paternal line is Irish. Something seems wrong here based on that chart
R(1b) is very typical among the Irish.
Pingback: The Sexualization of Steatopygia and Adaptationist Claims of Sex Organs « NotPoliticallyCorrect
It’s crazy how much woke politics permeates our culture nowadays but most people get their ideas from fat Jew podcasts.
Imagine evaluating something as serious as the future of the human race, like genetics, economics, governmental structure, free speech and other rights… through Netflix shows.
This is the great irony of jewish control of the media. We have the highest IQ people on earth feeding retarded garbage to the masses.
It would be very interesting watching tv in Israel and seeing what they actually believe in.
I think you will be disappointed. Israelis, on avg, don’t look really impressive intellectually.
Honestly it wouldn’t surprise if it was full of scams and weird sexual fetishes.
Anytime you watch tv or hollywood movies just think of someone who looks and acts like Harvey Weinstein as the source of all of it and ask if it really is as moral as you think.
Why did you pick Michael Essien of all people for that human race timeline you have to represent blacks?
Peeps,
Flowers are superior than leaves and that indicates humans are superior than primates not one race of humans over other races.
Are newer species of flowers superior than older species?
Also mongoloids could have some Denison admixture which could have decreased their superiority. Granted Caucasians also have Neanderthal admixture….but Neanderthals were superior to denisovans so caucasoids may have had admixture from superior species than mongoloids.
Also, inteligence or superiority isn’t determined by headsize alone but also connectome, cortical thickness, nutrition, quality of sleep and upbringing too.
See this:
https://www.newsweek.com/identical-twins-raised-apart-different-countries-huge-iq-difference-1704836
How they are superior? Just by complexity??
And unfortunately, psychology research tends to be very sloppy, because there are many academic psychologists who look like they were born without the basic capacity to learn how to discern correlation from causation and or also the capacity to prioritize scientific impartiality and objectivity over conformity to current dominant ideology in academia, specially in humanities. Any time we seeing this kind of study, we need to stay very cautious. Remember one thing: jumping from correlation to causation without a really solid body of evidences is a type of specific extraordinary claim which require an extraordinary evidence. Correlation is way more ordinary than causation.
“How they are superior? Just by complexity?”
Who caucasoids? I think they are superior due to their more significant achievements.
I will reply to the rest of your comment, later.
“Who caucasoids?”
Evolutionarily older species of plants in comparison to a newer ones.
“I think they are superior due to their more significant achievements.”
You’re speaking via collective levels and excluding the negative achievements, right? Because by an individual comparison, it is not true that every caucasoid individual is superior to a non-caucasoid and in every instance or just because the macro race s/he belongs. Also i tried to explain or say that throught a basic adaptation comparative analysis, most of human populations has been very good at, despising the more ideal ways to do so, saying in adaptative-pragmatic way.
Santo, i think collectively the white race has been superior to orientals in terms of achivements.
What a bullshit article on a bullshit paper.
Why is the paper bullshit?
what about this one?
https://www.newsweek.com/identical-twins-raised-apart-different-countries-huge-penis-size-difference-1704836
At priori, it’s correct to say that identical twins are not clones or some identical twins are more identical than others. This is one case of identical twins being raised in different countries, right??
RR, you should do a book review of Richard Plomin’s Blueprint.
I’ve written about the concept of the book here.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/07/15/dna-is-not-a-blueprint/
A bit on his opening argument and premise of the book here.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/07/21/dna-blueprint-and-fortune-teller/
And on PGS and causation here.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2021/01/01/polygenic-scores-and-causation/
Jay Joseph has popular review here.
https://www.madinamerica.com/2019/09/blueprint-genetic-determinism/
And his academic review.
Click to access FinalJay-Joseph-Review-of-Blueprint-Manuscript-AJP-Revised-9-17-2021.pdf
But yea, I should take on the larger points and argument from him. I’ll do it soon. I’d say that his whole career has been nothing more than one of wishes—wishes that the magic evidence needed to show him to be “right” is just around the corner.
Plomin has high PGS for schiz and obesity, but he doesn’t have either. He thinks he has genes that predispose him to be fat and schiz.
Also see Steve Pittelli’s review too.
https://freeassociations.org.uk/FA_New/OJS/index.php/fa/article/download/242/274
i am a walking mind fuck.
I started to read Sapiens, The Brief History of Humankind, Harari’s book and right in the first pages i already found things like “we really don’t know what makes humans bigger and complex brained” (try strong selective pressure).. and “humans are hopelessly born undeveloped and require lot of time to be cared and ‘educated’ ” that’s correct but “… humans come out of the womb like molten glass from a furnace. they can be twisted, stretched, and shaped with an astonishing degree of freedom. That’s why, nowadays, we can educate our children to become Christians or Buddhists, capitalists or socialists.”
Smells like blank slatism. That’s not totally correct.
I was “educated” or INDOCTRINATED to be catholic but even since my second childhood i begun to criticize my indoctrination firstly the narratives and then the core of religious belief.
My parents tried but my nature spoken more loudly.
How jewry has been benefited by blank slatism pseudoscience??
Harari a jew? That would explain it.
That’s because Harari is a bald gay Jew transhumanist. Very intelligent but not nearly the free thinker he pretends to be. Just woke social constructivist views backed up by a lot of (((biased))) research.
I think in Sapiens he basically subscribes to the accidental supremacy of Western culture of the “Guns, Germs, and Steel” variety and also he legitimately believes feminism. Lol.
“(try strong selective pressure)”
I think they may be trying to say that it is a mystery what selection pressures cause larger brains (which is true). Not that it is a mystery in general. But I haven’t read the book, so I don’t really know.
“Smells like blank slatism. ”
No, that’s just how neuroscience works
Jews publicly believe in the blank slate. Privately they are HBD hardcore.
But being hardcore hbd doesn’t necessarily means being a hardcore conservative. Well, secularist jews seems suffering from the same demographic problems as their gentiles counterparts: with very lower fertility rates and high levels of interethnic and maybe interracial marriages and they are the smartest among them. Becoming more and more orthodox in terms of demographic proportion don’t seems a smart thing to do if most of jewish political achievements in Western World has been possible thanks for their more secularized or reformed jewish segments and not by their most religious. Maybe they are experiencing a “kind of” eugenic patterns with upper class jews having more kids, not analysing by a belief level perspective. This pattern has been found in scandinavian countries, particularly in Sweden. But it seems insustainable at long term a people without working and middle class of the same ethnicity is like a body without its hands and feets. Being significantly dependent of other people…
Having a higher IQ isn’t a sign of superiority. Most people think nerds are actually inferior in the social sense.
And having a big dick is superior in the social sense but Rushton’s theory implied it is inferior. And in a way in a way it is because sex is all about shame. If something is considered sexy it’s probably shameful and inferior on some level too. Men find a big ass sexy but it’s sexy in part because it’s inferior and shameful. They want to rape it, not marry it. The most inferior and shameful thing humans do is defecate and some people find that sexy.
Normies’s opinions tend to be irrelevant. They believe in storytelling, myths and behave like monkeys with clothes (poor monkeys i’m nothing against you guys. I know it’s just a comparison with disgusting homo sepiens).
https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcac076/7008955?login=false
When a ”politically neutral” nerdy scientist does research in sociology.
because selective immigration, canada’s whites score lower than the average for canada.
US whites score higher than canada, so higher still than canadian wypipo.
ice hockey is the world’s most violent sport. i went to a fight, and a hockey game broke out.
sad.
canada = fredo
FALSE
On a scale where American’s average 100 with an SD of 15, Canadians have a WAIS-IV full-scale IQ of 104.5 with an SD of 13.4.
American whites score almost as high as Canadians. They have a full-scale IQ of 103.4 with an SD of 14.
It’s unclear what the IQs of Canadian whites are but I suspect they’re identical to Canadians as a whole.
TRUE!
possibilities:
1. steve sailer is lying.
2. peepee is lying.
#2 is OBVIOUSLY the case.
neither of us lying. different data sets. i have receipts
https://pumpkinperson.com/2020/09/12/canadas-iq/
Both of you have shown no data for canadian whites so everything here is supposition.
best of brightest of china go to beijing, shanghai to study and jiangsu, zinghyang territories are at the end of a long fertile river and are coastal….leading to the soil there being very fertile leading to nutritious crops to the local population.
therefore higher scores from those places compared to the rest of china.
so it’s just a beauty standard which is gross or developed from: a little lady junk is good so a lot is better…which is FALSE.
just a slit is gross.
just enough so that all the parts are visible and articulated is most appealing.
yuge hamburger lips are gross.
Audrey Hepburn > Ingrid.
in other words…
men actually prefer women with a bmi higher than women think men like. this doesn’t mean more fat. it means more fat and more muscle and more bone.
men actually don’t care that much about boob size. as long as you’re not totally flat chested and super big misshapen boobs are gross.
men actually prefer a vulva that isn’t just a butthole. it has a shape and form. the clitoris is visible but doesn’t look like a tiny penis. it doesn’t peak out from its hood much except when she’s horny.
According to RR there are no penis size differences between races. Even though the rest of the body is different in size between Asians, Caucasians, and Blacks, for some reason, penises are not included.
I think a lot of people don’t understand penis or breast size differences and assume that a difference implies something massively noticeable.
yeah. no difference how? the exact same distribution? length? girth?
but it is true that the blacks in porn have been selected for their size. black guys with normal penises don’t do porn. in fact white guys with normal penises don’t either…much. but there’s a lower bar for whites.
and obviously porn is very white. no one bitches about this. is it because only wypipo watch it? no.
RR doesn’t believe there couldn’t be racial differences in penis size. It’s just that the data is poorly collected and thus isn’t appropriate to extrapolate from.
Melo is correct. Rushton’s and Lynn’s “data” is nothing but unusable garbage, and we can’t draw any valid conclusions from the data. I don’t deny well-validated physical differences between races.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/06/03/black-white-differences-in-anatomy-and-physiology-black-athletic-superiority/
Standing in a shopping mall asking passersby random idiotic questions (“how far can you ejaculate?”), the mark of a “serious scholar who has amassed serious data” (Herrnstein and Murray). Hahaha. Thankfully Rushton’s frauds are being retracted and light has been shone on just how shoddy his methods were. Especially his melanocortin paper—I wonder if you have any thoughts on that?
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/09/03/jp-rushton-serious-scholar/
think of gwyneth paltrow.
she’s famous for her ugly boobs.
made famous by an unflattering dress at the oscars.
but she is or was very pretty.
one of top 10 most beautiful women i’ve ever met had small ugly boobs. but she was a knockout all the same.
she is now an instructor in chemistry at the university of …
I believe Paltrow is half jewish which didn’t stop Weinstein molesting her.
So she says. Pill believes all women because woke CNN tells him to.
Youre the person that actually admitted to watching CNN.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/05/nine-year-old-boy-graduates-high-school-david-balogun
WOW….child genius …..and hes black.
Must have some jewish or asian genes imo.
Puppy says this kid could have passed high school at age 9 by living in a cave. LOL.
Must have some jewish or asian genes imo.
I would highly doubt that’s the cause. Genius is indigenous to every race, it’s just much more common in some than others.
You said guys compare their dick sizes for social status….
In a bathhouse maybe.
NO I corrected the myth that big dicks are better but you’re too utterly socially retarded to know that myth exists. You can’t even grasp the concept that sex is associated with shame. There are entire branches of psychology that are closed to you.
“size doesn’t matter.” = FALSE…it’s a lie.
“size doesn’t matter ‘much’ (by some interpretation of ‘much’)” = TRUE
Size only really matter for losers, criminals and whores (we are talking about more than half of humanity).
basically humans have these things between their legs that demand to be fed just like a baby. and they cry until they get what they want. and these things can hijack people’s brains.
it’s called “cervical bruising”. there are some dicks so yuge their useless. “are you kidding? there is no way that is going inside me.”
a little more the average is best.
this is a general principle of aesthetics.
*…they’re useless…
you don’t have to imagine it. you can see it in porn.
if i wanted to make bank in porn it’d be easy. because no one’s done it yet.
1. no cameramen. no one else in the room. cameras invisible. but multiple cameras for editing. (most men can’t do porn. they can’t stay hard in front of people.) an inherently private act can’t be captured in public.
2. the men are as attractive as the women to the women.
and this would work because i know from women.
a woman’s concern is that she’ll get pregnant and be stuck with the kids or that the man is dangerous.
if a woman feels safe physically and economically and the man is very good looking she can be just as horny as a twink in a bathhouse.
women can be as horny as men, but they can control their horniness better than men. That is the difference.
at least we can all agree on one FACT!
the very best looking people, male and female, are WYPIPO.
peeps i need to post a picture here, how do i do that?
Only race that practiced extensive sexual selection but it has been its curse…
Vanity of whiteypeep is the bigger
But white people dont age as well as compared to others. you start seeing wrinkles on them before 40.
Another evidence.
More proof the world is closer to my perception of it than Philo’s
It’s ridiculous how competent our government is at being incompetent.