Current Events > Any of y'all ever wonder what it was like for cave-people to have sex?

(+) Yeah! (+)

spanky1 posted...

Koala bear sex is nonstop horrific violent rape with the girl koala running and screaming for help.

At least they're barely aware of anything, smoothbrained little weirdos. Pretty sure there are insects with more mental processing.

Meanwhile, fuckin' dolphins, always getting some neat little article about how they might be capable of learning speech, or have the learning ability of a 6 year old human, or something: gang rape, bestiality, extortion

https://youtu.be/xcyZ8pnAwcQ

only because the sex scene is age restricted. :)

Robot2600 posted...

I was a while in writing that post and reading some more stuff.

Even in modern humans, the fact that men are "stronger" than women is 90% social construct. women are literally scared away from working out too much and "getting too big." sure testosterone or whatever, but if you ever go to the gym you know there is nothing stopping girls from getting ripped except societal standards.

think about the varsity girls in high school, they could kick most people's ass.

I've worked out with women as workout partners and inevitably they are lifting as much as me in many areas in just as much time as it would take a guy.

Anyway the Penn State article talks about how it was previously thought that levels of dimorphism were high (that's why you guys are finding so much stuff about that, this new research is only 7 years old).

"Previous convention in the field was that there were high levels of dimorphism in the Australopithecus afarensis population," said Philip Reno, assistant professor of anthropology, Penn State. "Males were thought to be much larger than females."

[...]

The article goes on, but it talks about how the statistical methodology used in the past was wrong, with Lucy being assumed to be a typical sample, and thus counted many times in most calculations (specifically in the past when there were less available samples). The new study just counts every sample that we have once.

edit: to therefore discover that dimorphism was less in the past and has increased with time, rather than the inverse, or staying stable.

Professional Female Athletes lose to High School Boys teams

Robot2600 posted...

I was a while in writing that post and reading some more stuff.

Even in modern humans, the fact that men are "stronger" than women is 90% social construct. women are literally scared away from working out too much and "getting too big." sure testosterone or whatever, but if you ever go to the gym you know there is nothing stopping girls from getting ripped except societal standards.

think about the varsity girls in high school, they could kick most people's ass.

I've worked out with women as workout partners and inevitably they are lifting as much as me in many areas in just as much time as it would take a guy.

Anyway the Penn State article talks about how it was previously thought that levels of dimorphism were high (that's why you guys are finding so much stuff about that, this new research is only 7 years old).

"Previous convention in the field was that there were high levels of dimorphism in the Australopithecus afarensis population," said Philip Reno, assistant professor of anthropology, Penn State. "Males were thought to be much larger than females."

[...]

The article goes on, but it talks about how the statistical methodology used in the past was wrong, with Lucy being assumed to be a typical sample, and thus counted many times in most calculations (specifically in the past when there were less available samples). The new study just counts every sample that we have once.

edit: to therefore discover that dimorphism was less in the past and has increased with time, rather than the inverse, or staying stable.

Is this a long lost Sillyknees alt?

He's the only one I've ever seen try to suggest that the strength differences between men and women are almost entirely socially constructed. That just isn't true.

Solid Snake07 posted...

I would imagine the smell would be God awful

Not for them. Odor blindness exists. Like I've lived in a house that had a lot of animals. I never smelled a thing. But if I left and stayed gone a few days when I came back I could smell it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHjeuRwnSJY

https://law.duke.edu/sports/sex-sport/comparative-athletic-performance/

From the first line: "there is an average 10-12% performance gap between elite males and elite females."

10-12% is basically what I said earlier. That 10% looks like a lot at arbitrary sports games. In terms of biology it's not that much difference.

Robot2600 posted...

https://law.duke.edu/sports/sex-sport/comparative-athletic-performance/

From the first line: "there is an average 10-12% performance gap between elite males and elite females."

10-12% is basically what I said earlier. That 10% looks like a lot at arbitrary sports games. In terms of biology it's not that much difference.

Did you read past the first line?

Because, unless I'm not reading it incorrectly, you may find that they deliberately excluded events in which men and women have different standards.

The example they use is the shot put, in which men throw almost twice as much weight as women do.

Of course, if you cut out the events that require men to compete at a higher standard, it'll make the differences look closer than they they are.

Also, as per the notes of the article:

Numbers marked with a + indicate events where the cutoff set by the IAAF for the mens or boys list was faster than the top womans result for 2017; therefore, it is possible that more men or boys have outperformed the top womans result and were not included on the list.
* The 2017 world best in the womens category in the 800 meters was run by an athlete who is widely reported to have testes and T levels in the male range.

Now, again, perhaps I misunderstand, but that suggests to me that the data they're using would further artificially narrow the gap between men and women athletes.

Second, comparing athletic performance in specific track and field events is not something I would consider a good indicator of the difference between the strength levels of men and women.

For that, you'd probably be better off examining things like grip strength and lifting ability. You'll find that even untrained males are stronger than even athletic females and, last I checked, at the best women are only about 60 - 75% as strong as equivalent men. Especially with regard to upper body strength.