Is masculine intimidation a human strategy?

https://m.phys.org/news/2017-07-long-term-sexual-intimidation-widespread-primate.html#jCp

“Long-term sexual intimidation may be widespread in primate societies.”

“”This study adds to growing evidence that  use coercive tactics to constrain female  decisions in promiscuous primates, thereby questioning the extent of sexual freedom left for females in such societies and suggesting that sexual intimidation has a long evolutionary history in primates—a taxonomic group that of course includes humans,” says Alice Baniel at the Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse, France.”

Advertisements

9 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Craig on July 7, 2017 at 1:15 pm

    No self respecting man likes to be cucked. So yes, I think it is a legitimate strategy.

    Reply

  2. Posted by fuzziewuzziebear on July 7, 2017 at 8:43 pm

    Without reading it, it is very dangerous to make assumptions about human behavior and sexuality by observing primates. With respect to human female sexuality, is is all covert. There is nothing like it among the animals. We are unique. Still, from what I have seen of unbridled female sexuality, it would not serve women too well in the wild. I doubt that survival would be possible without some boundaries.

    Reply

    • Posted by Julian O'Dea on July 8, 2017 at 3:47 am

      I saw the new film about the 19th Century poetess Emily Dickinson recently. She lived in a patriarchal family but her father was able to provide her with the facility to write and a safe and loving home.

      Women did not all behave sexually even among her class it seems but the manners and mores of the time provided at least a veneer of order and decency. Women were protected from their own potential folly. Restrictions or freedom? Order or licence? Both have their problems.

      It is a remarkable fact that the generality of women often seem happier and more content and look better and healthier in more patriarchal times. This is seen clearly in dress, which is so fundamentally expressive of a woman. Women look ten times nicer under “patriarchy”. In the 19th Century. In the 1950s in the West. I have provided relevant older photos at this blog on occasion.

      By the way, I have seen some interesting signs that patriarchy is hardening up again. Trump’s win being one. Pressure from Islam is another. A certain disillusionment with progressivism perhaps …

      There is absolute hysteria among some American feminists at present. About minor things like male Republican figures applying dress codes to females. But maybe they are right to worry.

      Reply

      • Posted by fuzziewuzziebear on July 8, 2017 at 7:03 am

        I think that Trump’s win may be anomaly. Still, what carried him was that feminists failed to deliver white women. Politically, feminists are in a blind panic. They have not had a defeat on this scale since the Equal Rights Amendment failed to be ratified in the seventies. Most are too young to remember that.

        Still, I hold feminists responsible for releasing female human sexuality and we are only beginning realize how damaging it is.

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on July 8, 2017 at 7:10 am

        I was going to say, half-seriously, that I suspect familial patriarchy got its start when the village saw its nubile young women leave to follow passing warlords.

      • Posted by fuzziewuzziebear on July 8, 2017 at 9:06 am

        I have to wonder how well that worked out for the nubile young village girls. Maybe, a few of them came back to tell the tale. Yet, they still want to do it.

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on July 8, 2017 at 9:11 am

        It is interesting that there is genetic evidence that women in prehistoric times moved around more than men, and were more likely than the average man to have children. One can probably infer that these were women who got taken away by the “alpha males” of their time. There is an interesting pattern in the genetics of Icelanders I understand, which suggests that the Norsemen picked up Celtic girls in the British Isles to take with them to colonise Iceland.

      • Posted by fuzziewuzziebear on July 8, 2017 at 9:49 am

        I heard that too. but they were from the north of England, called the DaneLaw then. I guess the girls in Norway weren’t that adventurous.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: