🗑️ 🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 19:52:09 UTC No. 16270648
Are modern women evolutionary failiures? I read somewhere that humans used to carry children for far longer than 9 months but women degenerated to have narrow hips and giving birth to equivalent of 1 year old babies became unfeasible for them. This makes sense if you note that most mammals give birth to offspring already capable of walking, walking being one of the most essential species traits. Not only that, but most females today have no breasts and can't breastfeed, something that would render them as unfit for motherhood just a few millenia ago before humans adopted cattle milk and milk maids (and soislop formula today). Women never experienced selection pressures quite like men and we seem to be living through the time of reckoning for that grave mistake, feminism and child-free lifestyles being mere byproducts
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 19:56:15 UTC No. 16270655
incel opinion
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 20:06:03 UTC No. 16270673
>>16270648
I almost got with a girl looking like her. Damn, I miss her
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 20:09:12 UTC No. 16270680
>>16270648
the initial question is a bit misleading in representing the value of the actual question asked. you make a very good point, however males would be to blame in this context. mating with younger women in their teens due to their appearance has its evolutionary consequences. both good and bad
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 20:10:10 UTC No. 16270681
>>16270648
Humans don’t walk at birth because our brains are large and have to develop. Still, having narrow hips isn’t great and is assisted by modern technology. Personally I don’t choose a woman like this because you never know what will happen in the future.
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 20:10:57 UTC No. 16270683
post more skinny girls pls
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 20:12:03 UTC No. 16270685
>>16270680
That’s been going on forever. If it were dysgenic it would have been selected against. But c-sections are what have increased the rate of narrow hips
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 20:17:19 UTC No. 16270689
>>16270685
yeah you're right, this is a superior answer
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 20:21:58 UTC No. 16270691
>>16270648
>I read somewhere that humans used to carry children for far longer than 9 months but women degenerated to have narrow hips and giving birth to equivalent of 1 year old babies became unfeasible for them.
That is a hell of a claim to have been revealed to you in a dream.
>This makes sense if you note that most mammals give birth to offspring already capable of walking, walking being one of the most essential species traits.
This is called confirmation bias. If you believe something retarded, and set out to confirm that you are retarded, you will find supporting evidence for your baseless bullshit.
In this case, baby mammals are almost always vulnerable and dependent; large herbivores can often walk within a few hours to follow their mother around, but are nonetheless dependent on her for protection and feeding. Most mammals with protective shelters to return to are not capable of this, and many are born hairless or blind. Apes, including humans, are of the latter category; some baby apes are good at clinging to their mothers, but would not be expected to be running around under their own power for quite a while.
All of this was obvious even to you, but you ignored it in favor of making some weird ideological point.
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 20:47:31 UTC No. 16270714
>>16270648
>Are modern women evolutionary failiures?
Dysgenics. Basic reasoning realizes that mass C-sections relax harsh Darwinian selection pressures which normally kill off babies with genetics predisposing them to fail natural birth, resulting in a higher need for C-sections giving a dysgenic feedback loop.