Join 30,000+ Looksmaxxing Members!

Register a FREE account today to become a member. Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox.

  • DISCLAIMER: DO NOT ATTEMPT TREATMENT WITHOUT LICENCED MEDICAL CONSULTATION AND SUPERVISION

    This is a public discussion forum. The owners, staff, and users of this website ARE NOT engaged in rendering professional services to the individual reader. DO NOT use the content of this website as an alternative to personal examination and advice from licenced healthcare providers. DO NOT begin, delay, or discontinue treatments and/or exercises without licenced medical supervision. Learn more

Theory Sexual Selection Made Women Physically Weaker

Wilk

Well-known member
Reputable
Established
Joined
Jan 29, 2024
Messages
1,688
Reputation
3,880
Location
Brasil
Basically, part of the feminist literature hypothesizes that human men and women have bodies that are more similar in terms of strength. But that over time, women dominated by men had more chances of reproducing their genes, resulting in a loop of sexual selection for women who were more muscular, bony and explosively weaker, while men still had the benefit of being stronger, producing an accumulation of contrast between the female and male bodies. In this theory, the propagation of aesthetic values of thinness and shortness supports male oppression over women or at least the disadvantage of women.
 
Basically, part of the feminist literature hypothesizes that human men and women have bodies that are more similar in terms of strength. But that over time, women dominated by men had more chances of reproducing their genes, resulting in a loop of sexual selection for women who were more muscular, bony and explosively weaker, while men still had the benefit of being stronger, producing an accumulation of contrast between the female and male bodies. In this theory, the propagation of aesthetic values of thinness and shortness supports male oppression over women or at least the disadvantage of women.
shit theory


males were always strong

old fossils show female small

but both were still stronger than people from our age
 
Every man who teased hard enough a girl knows how submissive they can become (during sex), even your wild feminist from your town has a breeding fantasy, only accepted to be realised by a stronger men with superior genes

It's all human instincts for reproduction and being pregnant from strong men, for strong babies. It's condom and women's oppression who stopped Alphas birth rates
 
it is also genetic beyond those. Dont forget about the Y and X, there is more then just these hormones.
of course.
both these hormones are what determine physical strength: muscle and bone mass, agression, height
 
Basically, part of the feminist literature hypothesizes that human men and women have bodies that are more similar in terms of strength. But that over time, women dominated by men had more chances of reproducing their genes, resulting in a loop of sexual selection for women who were more muscular, bony and explosively weaker, while men still had the benefit of being stronger, producing an accumulation of contrast between the female and male bodies. In this theory, the propagation of aesthetic values of thinness and shortness supports male oppression over women or at least the disadvantage of women.
What a croc of shit. How retarded.
 
Every man who teased hard enough a girl knows how submissive they can become (during sex), even your wild feminist from your town has a breeding fantasy, only accepted to be realised by a stronger men with superior genes

It's all human instincts for reproduction and being pregnant from strong men, for strong babies. It's condom and women's oppression who stopped Alphas birth rates
Hardcore feminist types are actually a lot weaker. Less stable and easier to make cry.
 
Basically, part of the feminist literature hypothesizes that human men and women have bodies that are more similar in terms of strength. But that over time, women dominated by men had more chances of reproducing their genes, resulting in a loop of sexual selection for women who were more muscular, bony and explosively weaker, while men still had the benefit of being stronger, producing an accumulation of contrast between the female and male bodies. In this theory, the propagation of aesthetic values of thinness and shortness supports male oppression over women or at least the disadvantage of women.
I agree, historically women were put on a pedestal and kept safe and comfortable for their reproductive value and social class dynamics. Men were always and are still (somewhat) strong, and long before someone decided women were less, I’m sure women were just about as strong as men. Each gender has the same muscular potential, distributing inherent strength in different parts of the body, (men upper body; women lower body) but if you look at some women who go to the gym (minus OF and tripod girls) I’m sure they could take some ltn discordian any day
 
I agree, historically women were put on a pedestal and kept safe and comfortable for their reproductive value and social class dynamics. Men were always and are still (somewhat) strong, and long before someone decided women were less, I’m sure women were just about as strong as men. Each gender has the same muscular potential, distributing inherent strength in different parts of the body, (men upper body; women lower body) but if you look at some women who go to the gym (minus OF and tripod girls) I’m sure they could take some ltn discordian any day
no its hormones
women are more fertile with lower T
high T=muscles and bones
men>women in terms of strength
 
I agree, historically women were put on a pedestal and kept safe and comfortable for their reproductive value and social class dynamics. Men were always and are still (somewhat) strong, and long before someone decided women were less, I’m sure women were just about as strong as men. Each gender has the same muscular potential, distributing inherent strength in different parts of the body, (men upper body; women lower body) but if you look at some women who go to the gym (minus OF and tripod girls) I’m sure they could take some ltn discordian any day
I misunderstood the question imma go ropemax
 
I agree, historically women were put on a pedestal and kept safe and comfortable for their reproductive value and social class dynamics. Men were always and are still (somewhat) strong, and long before someone decided women were less, I’m sure women were just about as strong as men. Each gender has the same muscular potential, distributing inherent strength in different parts of the body, (men upper body; women lower body) but if you look at some women who go to the gym (minus OF and tripod girls) I’m sure they could take some ltn discordian any day
ltn discordian would win from a gym woman if he is not low t
 

Back
Top