Anonymous
His fetish is easily debunked. Women have two tits because the average number of birth per pregnancy is one. Mammals have twice the tits of their average number of births per pregnancy. This dumb faggot would need his amazonian women to have 10-12 tits. The amazonian morphology would likely have to radically change to accommodate such tits. His fantasy doesn't even reflect reality, he's just a submissive beta with a cuckold fetish.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13768109 >tfw he has to work together with the multiple body parts fetishists just for his gay dream to come true Anonymous
>>13768109 African have higher rates of multiparous births.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
As a manlet I approve of his fetish.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13768139 They also have much lower IQs. And strangely enough, the tribes that can't even invent the wheel right are matriarchies. Humanity literally evolved from ooga boogas when men chose to take charge.
BigFemaleSmallMale !!+L0aIjRAFci
>>13768080 >But somehow large women aren't? No, because of the fecundity advantage hypothesis and big mother hypothesis. Mammals rarely tend to express female biased dimorphism but when they can, they proliferate faster than everyone else, which should be obvious.
I'm not making up the principles that I'm using to justify the dimorphism.
>Not a dozen tiny cuckolds and one ant queen? However they wind up making families is up to them. It will most likely be monogamous or polyandrous so you're kind of right here.
>Until the taller evil men have armor. And learn to squash bugs. Such as?
>Literally all the issues he has with women being smaller than men could be fixed by giving women more elastic abdomens and wider pelvises with more cartilage In which case, taking those traits and then just scaling the woman up further increases the amount of copies of her genes that can be made. Although with too many children it would become too difficulty to invest parental care into all of them.
I always say that they'll have big hips and wombs. Women's wombs are already pretty much elastic enough to support many babies, the problem is that more resources need to go to the babies which tends to lower intelligence, but having larger bodies and more overall energy in your body helps deal with this.
Short fat women have way more problems with fertility and pregnancy than tall fit women. If you're going to be spending the energy on maintaining body mass in women for the sake of increasing fecundity, then the energy is best spend increasing female size and volume.
>>13768109 >women with triplets/quadruplets can't breast feed babies. Strong argument.
If you don't like my posts just ignore them.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13768148 I think you're missing out on adding two or more breasts to your amazons
Anonymous
>>13768148 >Such as? You drone (heh fitting) about how tiny men will be better at using modern equipment, and I do suppose they are better at being nimble, but it'll take a swarm of bugs to take down one giant, which is nulled by an equal number of giants, AKA normal sized men.
>I always say that they'll have big hips and wombs. Women's wombs are already pretty much elastic enough to support many babies, the problem is that more resources need to go to the babies which tends to lower intelligence, but having larger bodies and more overall energy in your body helps deal with this. It also helps to have most of the fat reserves specifically in the abdomen for this purpose. You could literally just stuff a wife and have her only gain weight on the stomach region for this very reason. Bellychads win again.
Anonymous
>>13768148 >>13768174 To elaborate more on the energy idea, African women pump out tons of kids despite being skeletons and the kids are well, retarded because momma booga didn't have enough fat reserves. So the solution is much simpler than your crazy Amazon fetish, simply concentrate fat only on the stomach region.
BigFemaleSmallMale !!+L0aIjRAFci
Quoted By:
>>13768174 >>13768183 Fat women have increased fertility problems
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4456969/ In terms of body mass and energy reserves going toward the gestating babies in her tummy, a 6'5" 200 pound fit women is better than a 5'5" 200 pound fat woman.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13768183 >simply concentrate fat only on the stomach region. pointless, fat is absorbed through the blood the fat stores could be anywhere, also you should look up steatopygia african women are plenty fat enough.
BigFemaleSmallMale !!+L0aIjRAFci
>>13768174 Also no, the point is that being smaller is better in a one on one fight with firearms, AND you can have more small males.
It does not matter how big or strong you are. When a bullet goes through your head, you die. You want to be small.
What I'm about to say is very disturbing, but child soldiers are considered incredibly effective specifically because of their small size, endurance, and agility. The males I'm describing are effectively child soldiers on steroids.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/child-soldiers-around-world I AM NOT ADVOCATING FOR CHILD SOLDIERS, I'm simply using them as evidence for the advantage of small size in modern engagement.
So we have a society of men who are cheaper to mass produce, we have more of them to build machines and fight, and the women are immune from male violence while having maximized fecundity.
The society grows exponentially faster while using fewer resources and is composed of superior workers and soldiers.
There is nothing morally wrong with women being big and men being small. In fact I'd say it's immoral to continue with male-biased dimorphism.
Anonymous
>>13768148 >>women with triplets/quadruplets can't breast feed babies. Did you miss the part where I said AVERAGE number of births?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13768139 Higher rates, but still low rates. Their average number of births per pregnancy is still around one.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13768207 >I AM NOT ADVOCATING FOR CHILD SOLDIERS, That's what they all say
Anonymous
>>13768207 A small twerp gets squashed easily by a bigger, better armored soldier. Plus, cover easily exists for taller men too. And militarized children are not better because of their size, but because of their naivety and malleability.
>I AM NOT ADVOCATING FOR CHILD SOLDIERS To quote a character I used as a reaction image, "Kids are cruel, Jack. And I'm very in touch with my inner child."
Your gnome soldiers would easily be squashed by men with bodies like WH40K marines and would easily be immolated by men who've basically been reduced to torsos and heads in massive war machines.
>There is nothing morally wrong with women being big and men being small. In fact I'd say it's immoral to continue with male-biased dimorphism. Confirmed beta cuck manlet.
Anonymous
>>13768207 How tall are you?
BigFemaleSmallMale !!+L0aIjRAFci
>>13768215 Primates who twin, like marmosets, still have 2 mammary glands.
>>13768228 Except he doesn't, you are coping and seething, and being larger gives no advantage to males anymore. Even assuming equal ability, he requries more energy, which reduces effectiveness.
The small-male advantage hypothesis literally states that unless there is SEXUAL selection acting on male size, males always become as small as possible.
Seriously dude you're talking about warhammer 40k characters to justify your idea.
I'm talking about the actual principles of biology.
>>13768234 I'm not small enough.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13768306 >I'm not small enough. How tall?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13768080 >But somehow large women aren't? Large women make my pp large so they're worth the energy.
Anonymous
>>13768306 Your "principles of biology" undoubtedly come from a fetish, and a shitty one at that. I used 40K merely for the size the Marines in that series have. Their might would render your tiny baby men worthless. Your fetish is shit.
Anonymous
>>13768563 The fecundity selection hypothesis, big mother hypothesis, and size advantage hypothesis are all used when analyzing sexual size dimorphism in species, and they together explain why females are commonly larger than males.
Why do you think females are bigger than males in almost all animals?
Why do you think, even in birds and mammals, which are the classes that have the most species with male-biased dimorphism, still only ~66% and ~45% of species have male biased size dimorphism?
~45% of mammals have bigger males than females. About 40% have same-size, and the last 15% have bigger females. Even in mammals we see species with female biased dimorphism. The principles come from mother nature.
Your position is literally based on a hatred of women. You are an incel that hates women, so you fantasize about rendering them extinct by building fake technologies like artificial wombs and robot wives. You glorify an outdated image of masculinity that isn't even as efficient at performing the tasks that you glorify it for.
A society led by amazon women and small men will not topple, it will not be rendered incompetent, it will not be easy to invade or take over, it will not have any of the weaknesses that you are saying it would have.
The actual weakness that it has is that it requires at least modern levels of technology to maintain itself. If industrial society collapses, then they would be put into a very precarious position. But so long as they have access to nukes and tanks and guns, they will dominate the global world order.
Anonymous
>>13768657 >~45% of mammals have bigger males than females. About 40% have same-size, and the last 15% have bigger females. now split this up into groups of average bodymass of these animals
if 50% of these species are under a kilo there could be issues with your data.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13768805 You're alluding to Rensch's rule. Species that have more extreme dimorphism in body size tend to be larger overall and have male-biased dimorphism. However this paradoxically isn't true in species with female biased dimorphism.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0000897 (this only looks at birds but I think it's sufficient for this conversation).
The mammal species that are female biased are the rabbits (lagomorphs), whales, bats, voles, spider monkeys, spotted hyenas, and some others. So you're right, they are overall smaller mammals. What I am proposing would be the most extreme level of female-biased size dimorphism across all mammal and bird species. The women would be about twice at tall and 3-4 times as massive.
Anonymous
>>13768805 OK so based on
>TIM BLACKBURN; KEVIN GASTON (1998). The distribution of mammal body masses. https://sci-hub.tf/10.1046/j.1365-2699.1998.00015.x# Only around 600 species out of the 2357 studied were larger than 1kg with maybe 300 above 10kg so that leaves maybe 200 species in the human comparable range.
The only one of those that stands out to me with a female larger than the male is the hyena.
Anonymous
>>13768868 I assume you've taken the time to read around the literature such as this 1977 paper by Ralls
>Sexual dimorphism in mammals: avian models and unanswered questions https://www.jstor.org/stable/2460389 admittedly that one is pretty old but argues that avian models don't seem to fit mammals very well
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>13768868 >>13768893 >>13768931 Are you the same anon, or two different guys talking to each other?
I've read the non-volant mammal paper, not the other two, I'm reading them now.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13768868 >>13768893 >>13768931 >>13768955 So reading over these papers they're just talking about body mass in mammal species. I don't see what this has to do with modifying humans to express female biased dimorphism. I already knew that other than whales and hyenas, mammals that express female biased dimorphism are smaller.
Anonymous
OP here, holy shit. Tbh I just wanted to roast the guy for clearly having a fetish, this is some legit debate here.
BigFemaleSmallMale !!+L0aIjRAFci
Quoted By:
>>13769265 While my motivation for thinking about this did start from a fetish, the reasoning for actually expressing the dimorphism is solid. I have never denied that the original motivation is because of my giantess fetish. It was when I started learning about evolutionary biology that I realized my fetish would actually make humans superior in the modern world. Not all fetishes are created equal.
BTW I do have a giantess vore fetish. I just like giant women, I have a giantess fetish in general, women should be as large as buildings lmao. That's not actually possible though so I'll settle for the amazon woman small man master race.
Anonymous
>>13768080 Well of course it never worked out, low test beta males can't possibly handle twelve milkers.
BigFemaleSmallMale !!+L0aIjRAFci
Quoted By:
>>13769335 The level of extreme female larger dimorphism I'm talking about never happened before because
1) The way the Y chromosome modulates autosomes makes it so that female mammals can't every grow that much larger than males. The Y chromosome needs to lose SHOX in order to render males small without affecting anything else, and this isn't common
2) in the male mammals that have SHOX deletion, they are very small, and outside of the modern industrial environment where smallness is actually better, they were out competed by males who did not have SHOX deletion and they weren't able to pass on the trait.
It's very odd that you guys continue to argue under the premise that smallness is somehow a beta trait. It is the superior trait. Get over your caveman standards and enter the modern world.
Anonymous
based transhumanism tripfag
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13769407 >advocate for carbon emission taxes that's an elite scam
Anonymous
midget males become easy prey for any number of animals
Anonymous
>>13768657 >The actual weakness that it has is that it requires at least modern levels of technology to maintain itself. There's your issue. Men are the ones who built and maintain modern technology.
If men become smaller, their brains will also become smaller.
Smaller brains = more stupid.
>b-b-but then the women can do all that stuff! Are you kidding? They can't and they don't want to. They'd probably even resent you for making them work more too.
Not gonna happen.
BigFemaleSmallMale !!+L0aIjRAFci
>>13769436 No they don't, they just shoot them.
How often do you see people get preyed upon by animals in the modern industrial world?
Why wouldn't children, or small women, be preyed upon by your logic? Why are small males unique in this weakness?
YOU PEOPLE DON'T MAKE SENSE. YOUR ARGUMENTS AGAINST ME DON'T MAKE SENSE.
BigFemaleSmallMale !!+L0aIjRAFci
>>13769447 They won't be less intelligent. Males with single gene SHOX deletion on the Y don't have lower intelligence, nor do they have worse health or lower athleticism. They're literally just small.
The women and men will be able to run society just fine. lower cognitive ability is only associated with SHOX in women with Turner syndrome.
The men and women will be very intelligent and capable. The women will be queens who help run society as they birth huge amounts of babies, increasing the number of copies of her and her husband's genes, and the men wont need to eat and will only weigh like 50 pounds so all the extra food goes to filling his wife's tummy so she can get big and strong and make many babies.
This is another thing I don't get. If you guys want to make the most amount of copies of your genes, why wouldn't you want to be small and have a giant wife?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13769447 >>13769471 Also to follow it up, The size of the brain and intelligence is most strongly correlated with brain mass compared to lean body mass. Height and intelligence have a very small, albeit positive, correlation. This is why people with various forms of Dwarfism, including extreme forms of dwarfism like MOPDII type dwarfism, do not have lower intelligence (and in many cases have IQs over 2 standard deviations above the mean).
Basically, if some guy has a brain that's half the size of yours BUT his lean body mass is a quarter of yours, he will most likely be smarter than you.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Amazonfag literally can not be disproven.
Anonymous
>>13769448 >No they don't, they just shoot them. >How often do you see people get preyed upon by animals in the modern industrial world? Not often, mostly because people aren't living with large animals
>Why wouldn't children, or small women, be preyed upon by your logic? Why are small males unique in this weakness? Most women aren't exactly as small as you want men to be. Tiny ass men would easily be squashed by an average /fit/izen wearing armor. I mean most men now don't exactly have guns 24/7 (cringe to be fair) so it's not like the regularly sized semi-buff guy will be harmed in any serious way... Unless you go the Japanese honeybee route.
>YOU PEOPLE DON'T MAKE SENSE. YOUR ARGUMENTS AGAINST ME DON'T MAKE SENSE. Your entire premise doesn't make sense. You could split your idea into two separate goals and they could actually make sense, either have everyone be a powerful warrior or have humans go full Kerbal, but no, you want men to be tiny, feeble creatures who can only put up a fight against even your average numale when given a firearm. And meanwhile with me, all you have to do is make women's bodies more elastic.
Anonymous
>>13769746 Another issue I haven't mentioned for some reason would be gestation. How would women survive giving birth to girls? Female fetuses would clearly be much larger than male fetuses due to the hormonal processes of keeping males small as hell. If a female were to birth another female, then the benefits of tiny men would be null unless the female was also shrunken down, in which case it'd just make the most sense to have both sexes start tiny and grow drastically during adolescence.
Anonymous
>>13769746 The whole point of sexual dimorphism is that you get to have both "goals" as you say happening simultaneously. Having one of the sexes become large and the other small is a very effective strategy, which is why it's seen so often. The pressure is about which one is to become large or small, my argument is that in the modern world it's better for the woman to be large and the male to be small. The elasticity of the body isn't what the problem is, it's about the overall size of the body so it can hold more energy without becoming obese.
You don't build your society based on if you think your men can win in a boxing match. That's retarded. You want to minimize the amount you put in while maximizing how much you get out.
The men aren't feeble, I've never described them as feeble. They are fit, athletic, fast, intelligent, dexterous, strong, and lightweight. They're just small with low energy requirements.
>>13769759 During adolescents the girls will grow very large and the males won't. Are you asking about if the woman has all girl babies inside her instead of a mix of girls and boys?
Anonymous
>>13769856 >During adolescents the girls will grow very large and the males won't. Are you asking about if the woman has all girl babies inside her instead of a mix of girls and boys? You could possibly achieve women giving birth to litters, but you'd need to give everyone more nipples, not gimp men's sizes.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13769879 The reason for shrinking men's sizes isn't related to the women gestating litters, that's not what my argument is. It's about the superiority of physically small size and low energy requirements on males in the modern world. Males do not have innate requirements on fecundity in relation to their size - fecundity selection and the big mother hypothesis only apply to females.
Small men are superior to big men now regardless of the amazon woman small man race. Being a small man is a superior trait outside of social discrimination, which won't exist in a society where all men are small and all women are large anyway.
Large women are superior because of the ability to store huge energy to feed their litters of babies without becoming obese and thus suffering from the complications of obesity. A tall thick strong matriarch who weighs ~190-210 pound can make litters of smart adorable little babies.
We can fuse the superiority of small men and large women, we can finally express female biased dimorphism and we can do so to an extreme degree that will allow us to vastly increase our population size, economic power, military power, fertility rate, etc., while also reducing or outright eliminating violence and oppression against women, increasing social stability and monogamy, increasing male paternal investment into their children, etc.
BigFemaleSmallMale !!+L0aIjRAFci
Bump
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13768080 For your image, bronze age explosion and exploiting bronze for military purposes all started in the Balkan region.
That is, E1b1b European subclades, not R1b/a.
Anonymous
>>13771743 >Ignores the biological fact that mammals have twice the teats of their average births per pregnancy >Concludes his fantasy is unassailable Easy to do when you ignore valid arguments. Either admit your fantasy requires significant morphological changes to female anatomy, the least of which is then having six tits, or piss off. This isn't even factoring in how your fantasy would require male penises to be at least 11 inches long in order to keep sex pleasurable with Amazon who have disproportionately large vaginae. Why is this a problem? A group of midgets with giga cocks would get light headed and possibly pass out from pumping that much blood to such a giga penis for prolonged erections. Also you never told us how tall you are, fag. Why'd you dodge that question, hm?
Anonymous
>>13771839 As already stated, primates who twin don't have 4 tits.
Anonymous
>>13771839 Also no, a 6'5" woman doesn't need an 11 inch dick to satisfy her lol.
Anonymous
>>13771841 >average number of births per pregnancy What's the average number of births for pregnancy of that species you named? In other words, out of 1,000,000 pregnancies, how many result in multiple births? Either you're intentionally ignoring this or you're literally retarded. Either way your credibility tanks.
Anonymous
>>13771844 Marmosets twin every time and they only have 2 tits.
Why do you think that a woman can't just swap out the pairs of babies during the 10-20 minutes she's nursing her litter? How is this actually a problem for her and her babies?
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>13771841 >>13771842 >Two responses >Still doesn't say how tall he is Hmm..
>>13771849 >>13771852 >The exception defines the rule >I'm going to base my fantasy on this outlier rather than on biological geberalities because the general biological processes doesnt get me hard Anonymous
>>13771869 The amazon woman small man race is already an outlier. They would have the most extreme level of female biased size dimorphism out of ALL mammalian and avian species, by far. The whole point is that it is extreme, and this extremeness is what makes it so potentially powerful.
Why can't the woman just breast feed her babies two at a time? How would this be a problem? Do you really think if your society were competing against the amazon woman small man society, you'd be able to outcompete them just because their women have to swap their babies in pairs during the ~15 minutes she's breastfeeding them?
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>13771891 How tall are you?
Anonymous
>>13771902 I'm 6'2".
You're shitty woman style of arguing where you are attempting to dismiss what I'm saying based on my height isn't going to work. In fact, you attempting to do this shows you do not have an actual argument. What, if I were short, you'd just say "haha you're arguments don't work because you're a manlet lol". Genuinely retarded.
Now actually explain what the problem is that you have with reversing sexual size dimorphism in humans.
Anonymous
>>13771902 I told you my height, which is irrelevant, but I did it to shut you up.
Where did you go? Where are you? Now that you can't dismiss my position without argument you run away?
Get over your hatred of the idea of fucking men who are smaller than you. It's retarded and outdated.
Anonymous
>>13771909 >>13771973 I see, so you're a submissive beta cursed with tall height and can't find a taller girl to suffocate him. Pathetic.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13772100 So where's the argument?
I have not once insulted or alluded to anything about you or your character. Why do you feel the need to do so against me? Is it perhaps because you know that what I'm saying has merit?
Your fantasies about an alpha male is rendered obsolete and inferior. No matter how much it makes you seethe, the tall strong "chad" gets slaughtered by the small elite shota. This is a fact. THE SHOTA *IS* THE ALPHA MALE YOU IDIOT. The tall man is the inferior male.
Anonymous
Large men aren't a waste of energy as it gives you an advantage in combat with animals or other humans As it gives you longer reach and more power. They talk about this in MMA all the time and its true with weapons like spears and clubs. Large woman make no sense as they will spend a lot of their time pregnant meaning resources used to keep them big will be wasted when they are pregnant. Which would be quite often without birth control lots of sex. It might be the case that larger size will increase ability to give birth however if this was true and it was more important then the resources consumed it would be this way. There is no argument here its clear why men are bigger and women are smaller. This also shows up in other aspects as men are less likely to get PTSD from traumatic events. I wonder where most traumatic events happen (combat and hunting)
Anonymous
>>13772186 Read the thread, everything your saying has been discussed and explained as to why you are wrong. Pretty much everything you're saying is wrong.
Anonymous
>>13768080 In modern society a man does not need to be big and strong, he needs to be able to earn money. Typical well paying jobs involve sitting still indoors while working.
Meanwhile, a woman's health and physique has direct consequences for the health of her children. A housewife has plenty of time to get exercise thanks to all the labor saving machines available.
In a modern context, fit large women and smaller intelligent men makes a lot of sense.
Anonymous
>>13772197 Its all correct keep seething fetishist. Evolution lead to our current state for a reason as it was more efficient for men to be bigger and woman to be smaller. For the reasons I laid out. More reach more power.
BigFemaleSmallMale !!+L0aIjRAFci
>>13772209 You're right, but it goes even further than that.
On a nation/societal level with industrial technology, a society composed of small men and giant women will be able to support more people for the same amount of food and energy, and thus always have more people to build machines and contribute to their economy, and have a larger military composed of superior soldiers. The small men don't need to eat so all the extra food can go to the giant women, who give birth in litters which means your societies fertility rate is exponentially faster than other societies (who themselves already have exponential fertility rates, so it's THAT much faster), and the giant women are immune from male violence and oppression.
>>13772210 But I am not disagreeing with what was good in the caveman era, we are discussing what is good in the INDUSTRIAL era. Where small males and giant females are better.
Anonymous
>>13772218 >Industrial society defies the laws of physics Men are bigger than women because it's efficient from a biological standpoint. Incel. To the lurking anons who are sad about their height: recognize this 6'2" incel
Anonymous
>>13772218 >industrial era Then anyone can be of any size. It doesn't matter. We have no issues with food so resource usage doesn't matter. No issues with giving birth as we have modern medicine. Strength and reach still matter in a few jobs like a police officers or soldiers (turns out you need to do more then just shoot people) but for pretty much every job other then the low percent of jobs it doesn't matter.
BigFemaleSmallMale !!+L0aIjRAFci
>>13772249 No, men are bigger than women because of the way the Y chromosome modulates autosomes. The modifications on the Y to render humans to have female biased dimorphism weren't a superior trait until the invention of the firearm and the industrialization of society.
It is NOT as efficient from a biological standpoint for men to be large and women to be anymore, for all the reasons I've already laid out ITT.
I am not an incel you coping retard. You are not as smart as me.
Humans will be genetically engineered to express extreme female biased sexual size dimorphism. Seethe about it
BigFemaleSmallMale !!+L0aIjRAFci
>>13772266 Reducing energy requirements for your population while increasing fertility rates are probably the most major advantages a society can have.
There is literally no reason to cap your population off at ~1 billion people if you can support ~1.7 for the same amount of resources.
Smaller males are superior to large ones in all relevant tasks. I would not be able to beat a smaller version of me if we were both armed, and I have to eat more, so there's literally no reason for me to be big.
A smaller woman can not produce as many babies as a large one, so she can not make as many copies of her genes. This is fecundity selection, which is literally one of the 3 primary aspects of Darwinian evolution.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13772249 >defies the laws of physics Are you genuinely retarded?
Anonymous
>>13772284 We have no issues with food production so this is a non issue. Population is also going to cap as 3rd world countries continue to industrialize and gain access to birth control or other social issues are solved with or without women increasing in size. The size of women are not limiting their ability to give birth.
BigFemaleSmallMale !!+L0aIjRAFci
Quoted By:
>>13772304 Have you even attempted to read the thread?
>We have no issues with food production so this is a non issue. This shows you are fundamentally misunderstanding what I'm saying, most likely because you haven't read it.
I am not talking about reducing the amount of food we produce, I'm talking about using the same amount of food in a more efficient way. There is no reason to spend the same amount of food on a smaller population of large males who are inferior to small ones. Larger females can make more babies, so the food should go to women, because women being large is a superior trait (men being large isn't).
>The size of women are not limiting their ability to give birth. Wrong. Larger women can birth litters without problems, while small ones can't. This was also already explain in this thread.
Over the same duration of time, the small3'5"- 4' husband and 6'5" wife can make 8 babies while the normal sized couple can only make 2. And they do it for fewer resources between themselves. So they go on to make more copies of their genes and the breed expands faster and dominates the genepool.
And a society composed of these people will have a superior economy and military, while having happier bigger families and lower rates of domestic violence against women.
There is literally no argument against this. The only reason you don't like it is because you're a bigot who doesn't like the idea of being big and fucking small men. But that's not really an argument, because the women in the giant women small man society will like being big and will like their small husbands.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Amazonfag unironically can't be disproven.
Anonymous
>>13772267 You have a fucking fetish, that is wacky and pathethic in the view of many others, not because you want larger women, because you want smaller men, you literally want to change what tens of thousands of years have done justifying in a technological era that only lasted less than a century, because even in the second industrial revolution strenght was required to operate most of the archaic machines, an era that only in fiction have lasted more than a millenia.
Lastly, how do you want to adress the problem of the giants women disliking the idea of mating with a dwarf? the manlet dilemma is real and you think you can solve with only gene- edition?
You are more lucky if you try to make functional human-animal hybrids
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13773495 epic meme, saved & reposted elsewhere
Anonymous
>>13772284 The all-male exogenesist master race uses even less energy than your beta-cuck faggot fantasy fetish race.
BigFemaleSmallMale !!+L0aIjRAFci
>>13773495 Industrial society is here to stay, I don't buy collapse scenarios.
I want both larger women AND smaller men. Both these traits are superior, I want to express both of them. I want the amazon matriarchy.
>giants women disliking the idea of mating with a dwarf? What I think about this is, the male taller norm is most likely a social construction that comes after being raised in a society with it.There is a lot of sociological and anthropological evidence for this. There are societies with no male taller norm, and the women in those societies universally do not care about male height, they are just as attracted to men shorter than them as men taller than them. Girls raised in households where her mother is taller than her father have a much higher probability of developing preference for men who are shorter than her, etc.
There may be a genetic component to this. It's the old chicken-and-the-egg scenario. Of the two possibilities, I think it is socialized.
However, if it is genetic, then we can find these genes by analyzing the genome of women who do not have preference for male size, and modify that into the germline as well, so all of the giant women will like their cute small men. It IS possible in theory to make women like men by modifying their genes. We CAN solve it with gene-editing, assuming that the preference has a genetic origin.
This means that the giant women who grow up in a society where women are big and men are small will like small men.
There already is some research on the genetics of height preference, and the data indicates that it genetics do play a small role in the preference.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4717574/ Eliminating female preference in male size is not actually going to be that difficult. Increasing bone density by 20% in males was more difficult because we didn't have any large genomic data for it, I had to figure it out by basically searching in the dark.
BigFemaleSmallMale !!+L0aIjRAFci
Quoted By:
>>13773717 I guess we'll see
Anonymous
>>13773733 >Industrial society is here to stay, I don't buy collapse scenarios. Then why do you assume food will be the resource bottleneck for populations?
BigFemaleSmallMale !!+L0aIjRAFci
>>13773782 Food is a bottleneck in the sense that a person has a resting metabolic rate and a larger person has a higher metabolic rate.
If you assume any finite amount of food, then you can support more people for the same amount of that finite amount of food, if the people are smaller.
The men are smaller so they use less food. The women are bigger so they use more food. But women are females and thus being bigger actually makes them better at having babies. Also, the big women become immune from rape and male violence and oppression. So spending food on women to make them big while saving food on men to keep them small is a good thing.
I'm not talking about saving resources, I'm talking about spending the same amount of resources in a better way.
Anonymous
>>13773823 Again you missed the point. Food is not the bottleneck restricting the size of industrial civilization. So why do you assume that the ability to consume less food will confer any advantage to your genetically modified population?
BigFemaleSmallMale !!+L0aIjRAFci
>>13773853 Food requirements absolutely set the least upper bound on your population size. So long as the people are eating, they can build factories and power plants to increase energy to support their civilization. And with the massive fertility rate and greater upper bound, there will always be more of them to build machines and factories and power plants etc. to increase their economy and military might.
Demographics is destiny, as they say.
Anonymous
>>13773733 >Social construct Ayy lmao
but first, dude, you have read your own link?:
> Furthermore, the genotype of an individual predicts their partners’ height in an independent dataset of 15,437 individuals with 13 % accuracy, which is 64 % of the theoretical maximum achievable with a heritability of 0.041. >"We show that genetic variation influences the choice of partner. The genetic correlation between height and the preference for a partner with similar height is 0.89, which indicates that genes affecting individual preferences for height and one’s own height are largely shared." Granted, there is more couples with shorter differences in height, but that dont erase the manlet's tragedy.
Look buddy, everything around the human behavior is a mix between natural behavior and social constructions, the preference of the "bad guy" or the arise of the "basedboy" joke, are only social results based in a natural preference, one show more strenght and the other shows weakness, that doesnt mean that all women would want "chad" in their beds, but reflects that they will valorate the signs of good-will-strenght in their couples, because it shows protection, that is something that in thousands of years was searched by females because the circunstances of living in a harsh world.
But, okey, lets say that you can solve all one way or another, why the general population would like that? how you can convince a person that their offspring to be mutations? even if you say that you dont need to convince everyone, why a group of power would like that?
Anonymous
>>13773901 >Food requirements absolutely set the least upper bound on your population size. Wrong. Energy, not food, is the limiting factor. Food is only a small percentage of any person's budget in an industrialized country, and most people have more food than they need, and spend multiple times more on food than they strictly need, just to have food they enjoy.
You've also wrongly assumed that population size confers an advantage in modern military conflicts. There are multiple examples from the past 50 years utterly disproving this.
BigFemaleSmallMale !!+L0aIjRAFci
>>13773952 We already know that 6% of women show literally no preference whatsoever in male height. They do not care if a man is up to their waist. 6% is about ~180 MILLION women. We can find the genes associated with the lack of size preference, it's completely possible.
In terms of actually convincing people to modify their children to be this way, yes, this is my achilles heel. This is the one actual true weakness, that for some reason you guys never bring up. It is obvious that the actual traits I'm discussing are superior for everyone, a society composed of small men and giant women would be a much better place to live for everyone, and the society itself would be massively superior to all others.
The only thing I can think of is getting an authoritarian state to force the changes on people, which would cause other nations to have to do so as well in order to remain competitive. This is outlandish. I don't know how to do this. I'll figure this part out when the time comes.
Anonymous
>https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/genetically-engineered-pig-kidney-successfully-transplanted-into-human-patient-in-world-first/ It just gets weirder and weirder. Fuck me I think that crazy mfer was right. Humans are piggy looking mfers, and every body knows it but its just a matter of time before all the "coincidences" converge. Holy fuck this will change the course of history
BigFemaleSmallMale !!+L0aIjRAFci
>>13773977 Which is why having more people eating that extra food is a good thing.
I don't understand, are you actually arguing that having a larger population with a faster rate of growth wouldn't give massive advantage to a nations economy and military? Because this is just cope and wrong.
BigFemaleSmallMale !!+L0aIjRAFci
>>13774013 You don't understand anon,
I AM THE UBERMENSCH
I HAVE RISEN ABOVE THE VALUES OF ALL OTHER HUMANS, AND MY VALUES AND THE GENETIC MODIFICATIONS THAT I AM FINALIZING WILL BE FORCED ON ALL FUTURE HUMANS
I WILL CARVE THE WAY FOR THE AMAZON MATRIARCHY
I WILL HAND WOMEN THE KEYS TO THE WORLD, SIMPLY TO SATISFY MY SEXUAL FETISH
I
AM
THE
CHOSEN
ONE
THE GODDESS HAS CHOSEN ME
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Pork is human flesh minus 1 sugar molecule holy fuck I think I'm gonna go throw up now
Anonymous
>>13774014 >are you actually arguing that having a larger population with a faster rate of growth wouldn't give massive advantage to a nations economy and military? Yes, that's exactly what I'm arguing. Food consumption is irrelevant. Population size is mostly irrelevant, and might even be a hindrance. A hundred million starving Africans does not make an industrial superpower. Your fixation on food consumption is irrelevant. Militaries don't lose conflicts because their soldiers don't have enough food. Nor does the number of soldiers determine the outcome of a conflict.
Anonymous
BigFemaleSmallMale !!+L0aIjRAFci
>>13774036 No, you are wrong.
Africans are not industrialized. They are not relevant to the argument.
There is literally no argument to be made that having a larger population of equally armed and wealthy people won't be a massive force to be contended with.
There is no reason to want to minimize your population size if you can have more people who are just as well fed and productive.
Anonymous
BigFemaleSmallMale !!+L0aIjRAFci
>>13774074 Cope.
I am not a schizo. I'm not like Mr. Tooker or solvigus or that guy who talks about the hitomi math or that other guy who's name I'm spacing on. You know the fourth one.
I am completely sane.
Anonymous
>>13774053 Optimizing a population to minimize food consumption per capita is retarded. Food consumption irrelevant compared to intelligence, which is the actual determinant of technological progress and military strength. A normal-sized population bred for superior intelligence, health, and longevity would easily win in any military conflict regardless of pure numbers.
Anonymous
Why even have males, just have all females?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13774124 Everyone has the X chromo, schlomo
Anonymous
>>13774082 No. You're mentally ill. You should unironically see a psychiatrist. You would probably benefit from antipsychotic medication.
BigFemaleSmallMale !!+L0aIjRAFci
Quoted By:
>>13774123 They'd lose against a population of equally intelligent more numerous people with superior fertility and more optimized body size for the modern world.
>>13774124 A society of all women or one of all men can't compete against women + men. The two sexes are too powerful in their specialization to think you can compete while missing one of them.
I've rendered the SCUM manifesto obsolete. We dont need to get rid of males, we just need to remove their ability to hurt women in the domestic setting.
Anonymous
>>13774008 Do you realize that those are two diferent scenarios? 1. a women willing to date someone some centimeters shorter, and 2. a women willing to date a midget.
I almost forgot about the technology issue, you see, a collapse is not the only scenario, technology can simply be stagnant, maybe limits exist in what the human can make,.
But, even if the futuristic-technology era is on its way, you still have many problems even with your solution, yo arent the only one bond-villain that thinks his ideas are better and should be efforced and then asking why so many people are furious, but even far than the revolutionaries forces that will be born in your little nation, you still have enemies outside, other assholes that think they can mold millions of humans lives in their twisted ideas, one could be me, because your little utopia clash with my idea of a future with monmusus-wives.
BigFemaleSmallMale !!+L0aIjRAFci
Quoted By:
>>13774141 I'm not mentally ill.
BigFemaleSmallMale !!+L0aIjRAFci
Quoted By:
>>13774150 Those aren't two different scenarios.
The women willing to date a 142cm man weren't themselves all short. They had varied heights, some were taller than average. The willingness to date a man who is literally a midget is seen in 6% of women. Whatever causes this can be found.
As for your other stuff, I don't know what a monmusus wife is. What is that?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
don't care
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Men who like tall women are mentally ill and this thread is proof.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Man this faggots argument for manlets in the military has got to be the most laughable by far.>muh child soldiers move fast just like in an anime
Anonymous
Quoted By:
OK manlet fetish anon, this reference will go over the head of most of those present in these threads but I'll say it anyway. >They can take our lives but they'll never take our trousers.
