>>4007179I'm hostile because the ideas are cretinous and bad anthropology is my pet peeve. This is not the 19th century.
Also, money did not exactly supplant barter, that's an oversimplification of 2 often co-existing systems.
>it is close to plausible because we don't knowWhy don't we just say ancient Xenu worship was plausible.
After all, how could we disprove of it?
It's not like we could extrapolate human behaviors on the basis of widely-observed, some would say universal, behavior from relatively isolated populations.
>internalized homophobiaGenuinely funny.
Why, because I recognize that boys tend to overwhelmingly prefer girls?
Even among the gayest animals, only a maximum of 30% of any given population will exhibit homosexual activity, and most of those are also bisexual.
The gays will always have the right to feel like special snowflakes because statistically the gays kinda are, that's just a fact
This just makes sense: evolution frowns upon homosexuality the way it would smile upon sucking on your mate's cloaca to rid it of potential deposits of semen from other males: behaviors that are not conducive to being passed on won't be, behaviors that are will be, regardless of how stupid they are.
Also, being with women just for reproduction, not even sex per se, but just the sex that makes the baby? What are we, fish?
Why would we as members of a social species not want to be intimate with those with whom we are intimate? What are we, spiders?
