Descent of Woman

Skip to first unread message

Aug 1, 2022, 3:34:17 PM8/1/22


Aug 7, 2022, 12:35:07 AM8/7/22
to wrote:


Ever watch the film, "The Princess Bride?"

What was that great character? "Inconceivable!" That great character?


He was played by Wallace Shawn. I met him once. He hosted an event
with Noam Chomsky, here in Boston, and I was there, part of the crew
filming it. Oh, boy, did THAT suck out load! The "Documentary" or whatever
you want to call it. I found out about it... was it that day? Or the night before?

Still haven't been paid.

Not that any of us deserved money for that dog! But, it wasn't our fault. Well,
there was the "Filmmaker" we were all assisting, and he was... shameless.

So that's where I met Wallace Shawn, And this has absolutely nothing to do
with the point I'm trying to make. But another character, the Westley character,
played by an actor whom I never met, does have a lot to do with my point. See,
in the film, if you recall, Westley was... dead? No! He was "Mostly dead." And in
that same sense Elaine Morgan wasn't right, she was "Mostly right."

If you spend like five minutes reading up on r/K selection you can't help but
see the argument for sexual selection. IN SOME POPULATIONS. Clearly not all
populations were sexually selected, while it's really difficult to see how others
could have possibly not have been. I personally have long argued that what we
think of as Hss was sexually selected, for example, while Neanderthals were

One researcher claims that penis size supports r/K selection.. the larger the
willie, the less intelligent?!?

I forget the researchers name. He was at some school in Belfast, if I recall,
but that's all I remember. I posted the URL to a PDF of the study years ago
but it's a dead link now...

So, I think it fair to say that in some environments the females had a lot of
say in their sexual activity. Reproductive strategies, which is a fancy way of
saying how their decisions to have sex were made, had a huge impact on
human development, and it seems that different populations made different

So the females were probably deciding the when, where & with whom for
some populations, while in others it was probably closer to the gorilla

Also: The sea shore offered some HUGE advantages. They didn't need a
change in environment, though that might've helped things along.

The sea can support a higher population density! You can feed more mouths.

The sea required far less work. I mean, once you figured out how to get
through shells, a protein rich diet was there for you to pick up!

Sea food is brain food. Period. You got BUCKETS more Omega-3s, and the
right ones at that, guaranteeing that your brains were going to grow just
as big as genetics would allow.

Google is literally dying on me so I have to stop it here...

-- --

Aug 7, 2022, 5:30:57 AM8/7/22
Human penis length might have to do with our thicker SC fat layers (an aquatic rudiment?), see Elaine's book: uterus deeper in the body? not with polygyny?
I'd think our littoral ancestors were monogamous: both parents diving, and father bringing (kissing?) food to his wife & children?


Op zondag 7 augustus 2022 om 06:35:07 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:
Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages