How did people like this survive, evolutionarily? I can understand just your average faggot surviving...

Not talking about homosexuality

Female selection doesnt matter when the stronger males kill them off. Thats actually the point here. They form a sexual threat so stronger males have all the reason to kill them

>That males with more feminine traits automatically hold weaker positions within a tribe,
Physically weaker males*, and thats absolutely true and an axiom.

because they'd have had to fucking go and kill shit with the dudes also, and a nicer face, along with a bigger dick is more attractive to females.

The general rule is "if it's not counterproductive then it's not selected against". There were no "weak" people in hunter-gatherer societies, everyone, straight, gay, sissy or whatever had to pull their weight and their personal tastes came later. Interestingly, many primitive societies recognize a third gender (usually males that want to be female) and have fewer taboos about who fucks who. It's only after agriculture and sedentary societies that we came to see women as useless except for procreation, and so anyone that's not a full-on male is expected to be weak.

It was never seen as a threat? On top of that, what you perceive as feminine traits in that guy, was probably a dominating and attractive trait on a relative. In general, guys with "fem" traits have a lot more attractive features. Imagine if that dude was buff instead.

We've not changed all that much as a species since then, I've mostly been protected and provided for by stronger males. Left with the females whilst they go and get stuff for the group.
Maybe I circumvent being seen as a threat and tap into behaviours nature intended to be directed towards females.
It's never stopped me from copulating with both sides, either.

Still though, even agrarian societies up until recent history still had a patriarchal structure. There is no reason for the more dominant males not to kill off a faggot who forms a significant sexual threat to them. Why would you toil in the fields all day only to have your wife stolen by some scrawny fuck with a big dick?

Disagree, shaman/wise elder/medicine man is above the common laborer/soldier.

Bigger dicks are instinctively seen as a sexual threat for the reason stated in the OP. It goes back to our ape ancestors, we instantly recognize the threat of a big dick.

I addressed the point of attractiveness. It would not have mattered if they got killed off for being physically weaker yet forming a significant threat in reproduction.

Primitive societies rarely enforce monogamy. Pretty much everyone has sex with everyone at some point.

These faggots are a product of the internet and nothing further. They have been fed propaganda that directly caters to their week mental state. In turn, they turn out this way.

Is it natural? Absolutely not. Is it beneficial to the overall campaign to subjugate males and snuff out masculinity? Perhaps.

Attached: cover_274381072017_r.jpg (1000x1000, 78K)

>How did people like this survive, evolutionarily?
They didn't, trannies are a modern invention and phenomenon. They also ruined thigh-highs and generally feminine clothing, tights and the colour pink. Absolute cancer.

>Maybe I circumvent being seen as a threat and tap into behaviours nature intended to be directed towards females.
These sorts of explanations was what i was looking for. Not saying its true necessarily, but thats somewhere in the realm of possibilities that i think could have been the reason. Maybe the stronger males kinda felt bad for them and they triggered a protective instinct similar to that which females and children do, or maybe their sensitive and feminine nature appealed to the stronger males who kept them around for comfort (basically an indication of early homosexuality, but probaby really rare or just nonexistant)

I'll agree it's being amplified today, but it's ignorant and short-sighted of you to say they haven't been around for at least all of recorded human history.
It's very much natural for weaker monkeys to submit.

They were valuable to the tribe but the physically stronger males were always higher on the dominance hierarchy.

They survive because you couldn't kill them even if you wanted to and you are so detestable that people naturally oppose any idea you have that they don't completely already agree on.

The real question is how do hateful and delusional people survive since normally they would be incapable of finding a mate at all and would most likely get themselves thrown out with their ridiculous ideas and ideals.

Attached: 1550208852711.jpg (300x450, 20K)

Im not talking about homosexuality, im talking about being physically weak and feminine yet having a large penis. Those are physical traits, not caused by any mental illnesses.

Genetic defects exist in every generation, you just see a disproportionate amount of them now due to a lack of resource scarcity and lax societal customs

>"yall are dumb as fuck if you think its genetic"
>doesn't provide any proof it's not
>expects people to believe him

big dicks havent been seen as admirable until porn

big dicks really arent attractive, they are just a fetish

I dont hate feminine males and im not saying we should kill them, lol. Im simply saying that looking at this from an evolutionary angle, these traits seem to be the worst possible combination for survival in pre civilization society. Physical strength is what determines your ability to defend yourself against other males, and your desirability amongst females is what makes men compete/clash with you. So being high in the trait that makes other men want to kill you, yet being low in the trait that makes you able to defend yourself from those males seems to be the worst set of traits possible from an evolutionary perspective.

That's true, but the fact that the two are not related is precisely why they are able to exist in tandem.

The role in mental stability has to do with the genetics of both partners. Is it not common for males to seek submissive and feminine females?

It is very possible that the females submissive nature was carried over genetically to the son, causing him to end up this way, and yet the large penis gene was carried over from the father or grandfather.

Its not necessarily about desirability. Read the OP. Big dicks invoke a primal response in us because the penis doubles as a tool for removing the semen of another male. This is why bigger penises even exist. They are indeed not really selected for sexually, its just that they are better at scraping out the semen of the guy who had sex before you and placing your own instead. This goes way back in evolution and because of that we recognize on a primal level bigger dicks as a sexual threat.

Yeah, but the point is that such a combination of traits is highly unfavorable from an evolutionary perspective and thus would not survive very long, if at all. See

Sometimes, but not always. Don't be such an absolutist.
Say you're the strongest man, the fact of the matter is that if I am known as a wise man and a shaman (with a girlish body and a massive donger) and I have the ear and confidence of the next 10 strongest men under you, you'll do as I say or face being deposed by the man directly under you in the hierarchy, who has been waiting for you to make a mistake.
He's itching to turn the group against you and if you've been at the top for any amount of time, you know it.
Do it or you'll anger Ungabunga and the blame for anything bad that happens in the next year will rest squarely on your shoulders.
Checkmate, muscleman.

Males who were not physically imposing did not hold any authority. This may be possible today, but it would have been virtually impossible in early society. And i say may be possible, because even today physically weak men are regarded with little to no respect.

You sound American. Are you American?

Why does it matter? I didn't say anything about myself here yet you assumed i'm saying i'm a physically strong man. Why are you so interested in me?

>Archaeological evidence suggests shamans were important figures in tribal culture at least 17,000 years ago. Cave paintings in France dated back to this time show shamanic figures with elaborate dress, such as robes and masks made from animal heads. This implies their place at the top of the tribal hierarchy.
>Tribal societies with social stratification under a single (or dual) leader emerged in the Neolithic period out of earlier tribal structures with little stratification, and they remained prevalent throughout the Iron Age. In the case of indigenous tribal societies existing within larger colonial and post-colonial states, tribal chiefs may represent their tribe or ethnicity in a form of self-government. The most common types are the chairman of a council (usually of "elders") and/or a broader popular assembly in "parliamentary" cultures, the war chief (may be an alternative or additional post in war time), the hereditary chief, and the politically dominant medicineman (in "theocratic" cultures).
Elders and Shamans, my man. Not strongmen. Cite some evidence to counter me.

Remember Evolution is just a theory. There are millions of gay birds too. They make my dick make cummies so I assume they're chosen specifically by god to do away with genetic survival and just serve the tribe. Maybe in times of extreme stress and suicide rates go up (like they are now) more gayboys are born to entertain and make life worth living. It's like how in poorer places slightly more girls than boys are born because its a safer bet to pass on genetics if you have a girl. The body knows what to born, and if they right environment is set then there's no reason having a girly boy isn't the best thing to let the tribe survive.

I'm not particularly interested in you, you just display the hallmarks of someone raised in the American cultural sphere, with corresponding worldview.
Might makes right, red meat, collegiate football heroes, jocks and nerds etc. etc.
Don't get so upset.
I never assumed you were a physically strong man, was just a hypothetical where I assigned you the part of a strong man within a tribe given your argument.
Just for the record, I'm not a shaman either.

As i said they were important for the tribe, but they usually held the position of an advisor to the strongman who was the true leader and held the actual power to make executive decisions. Also, these are elders you are talking about. Its not far fatches to assume many of them were former warrior turned shaman as they got older and wiser.

You have good taste OP... got any more o dat?

But what are you basing this on?
Do you have a source or are you describing how you think it should have been?

Well i never said these were my opinions or that i think this is the way it should be. I'm just saying that this is the way it actually is, if we look at it objectively.

What makes you think i'm upset? Lol. I actually thought you were a tad bit upset because you sounded defensive over the power that physically nonthreatening men hold (or lack thereof to be more accurate).

I don't think it's necessary to provide a source for such an axiomatic claim that the men who hold the actual physical power are the ones who make executive decisions, especially when that is even true today for the most part. When you accept that as fact, the only possible role a shaman could have is to be an advisor to the strongman leader. I guess the part about them being retired warriors is debatable, i think its fair to say many were not, but i also think that many of them were indeed retired warriors.

If we look at it objectively, the evidence supports the strong doing the bidding of the old, the wise, the rich and the otherwise socially powerful throughout history. That is how it is today, also, just look the power wielded by feeble priests, popes and presidents.

Let me reiterate my supporting evidence:
>[the shamans place was] at the top of the tribal hierarchy.
>The most common types [of tribal chiefs] are the chairman of a council [of elders], the war chief (may be an alternative or additional post in war time), the hereditary chief, and the politically dominant medicineman.

I thought made you sound perturbed, my mistake.

It's not fact. The men who hold the physical power today are not necessarily strong themselves. Whether I wield command of a nuclear missile through a nuclear football or a spear-toting war party through the threat of the wrath of the gods is no matter, I don't necessarily have to wield the spear or hurl the missile myself to use it as leverage to retain my place at the top of the hierarchy.
You have a simplistic view of human organization, even at a primitive level.

I just found this on random lol, not exactly into this stuff

don't be retarded OP, that dick is barely 6 inches. Notice how it doesn't come even close to the bellybutton, and that, considering she is most likely very short, means her dick isn't very huge or anything. At best it's above average.

I have noticed that you too are a man who appreciates fine culture.

Attached: 62c11deabc217330f5e34dbd9c8b5ac156b70160538_1.jpg (1024x576, 51K)

the op question is so silly i won't even bother to answer it seriously

To be honest this sounds more like an attempt to redefine the relation between strongman and shaman. You could indeed say that the strongman is "doing the bidding" of the shaman, but you could also say that the shaman simply has no power of his own, and his power depends solely on his ability to persuade the strongman. The strongman can tell him to buzz off at any time. In other words nothing is happening unless the strongman wants it.

It is a fact though. Even today (and i say even because physical power matters far less today than it used to) the men in power are all strongmen type leaders. Look at Trump and Putin for example. If even today being a strongman is so important, there can be no doubt to its importance in history when it was far more important

Bare in mind, the heterosexual transmission is when gay people go and infect females. You're disgusting, dirty, perverted, creepy and sick creatures and your death will be a blessing.

All faggots are evolutionary failures.

Attached: AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS.png (619x517, 45K)

>You could indeed say that the strongman is "doing the bidding" of the shaman
And thus the shaman is above him in the hierarchy.
>you could also say that the shaman simply has no power of his own
Disagree, the power of the shaman is to manipulate the stronger males into doing his bidding. That in itself is his power.
>The strongman can tell him to buzz off at any time.
Yes, but there would be consequences, or the threat of consequences at the very least. The strongman is bound by the words of the shaman.
>the men in power are all strongmen type leaders
This is a good point, no doubt of its importance, but that's merely an image they've carefully cultivated. The people who mandate these leaders are weak and hierarchically low themselves and want a strong protector, but the leaders may often have to bend the knee behind the scenes to old, rich, physically weak, but socially powerful men to retain their power.

>All faggots are evolutionary failures.
>he unironically believes homofagism is genetic
Even if it were, one could simply choose not to partake in homosexual acts. Much like one should avoid drugs to lead a better life, one should strive for a normal romantic relationship. It's all about self-control. Not that any of that matters for robots anyway.

And how many offspring do you have?

how come all you pathetic lonely fucks do is talk about 'the gay question' like a bunch of fucking weirdos.

You all need help. Seriously. You put way too much effort into this shit and you need to work on improving your own lives before you can shit talk anybody else's.

The feminine fags wouldn't be lazing around a computer and avoiding physical work. Certain environment select for different kinds of builds. Hunter gatherers tend to be tall and thin with long legs since endurance/running is important. Mountain people tend to be broader with stockier limbs. Take a "weak and feminine" male. Then imagine if they did nothing but running and general labor all day. That's the sort of build they'd have.

As far as homosexuality in general, it's mainly spread by bisexuals. In a society without monogomy, bisexuality can be optimal. Ones that lean more homosexual can also provide labor for the tribe without creating more children which isn't a bad thing during famine years. Hell, prolonged periods of famine could be what originally evolved them in humans.

I said "you could say", to illustrate that it could be portrayed that way. But i also explained that it's just an attempt to redefine what actually happens. Having to request things from someone and hoping he agrees is the definition of subordination. Which is the point i have been making all along, and apparently you agree without being aware of it. Though the shaman holds more power than average warrior, its strongman leader who holds all the executive power, any power the shaman has is granted to him by the strongman in exchange for the wisdom the shaman can offer him. Getting back to the central point, this shaman would certainly not have been a random faggot with a big penor.

>Disagree, the power of the shaman is to manipulate the stronger males into doing his bidding.
This is just conjecture at this point. There is nothing indicating such a thing. There is no reason why any leader would have any patience for that. Even today attempts at manipulation are called treason and have the highest punishments in all courts of law. Back in the day those punishments used to be far more brutal. You try that shit, you're gonna meet a bad end.

>This is a good point, no doubt of its importance, but that's merely an image they've carefully cultivated
In some cases maybe, certainly not in cases of people like Putin. The guy has actually worked in the field and handled life and death situations.

Those rich old men again are hardly feminine. They may be physically weak but they are still traditionally masculine. In a tribe they perhaps may have been like an early version of an officer, or maybe a manager.

The strongman makes all the day to day decisions generally and most of the big decisions. The shaman is generally there to impart tradition, provide counsel and usually has extreme power but only in a handful of exceptional circumstances. Things like childbirth, death, entering adulthood rituals and stuff like that the shaman would definitely have power over.

No man, these fags are feminine in both personality and physicality. And when it comes to physicality, you're completely off. You're just thinking of a thinner but still muscular guy. Thats not what these guys are. They are small in frame, weak in musculature and clearly high in estrogen. Its not the computers that made them that way, its genetics.

They are not hunters turned into faggots by computers, they are just not hunters at all.

>Having to request things from someone and hoping he agrees is the definition of subordination.
Not requesting, demanding in the name of a higher power with threat of divine punishment. Psychological manipulation.
>strongman leader who holds all the executive power
The notion of a tribal strongman leader who holds all the executive power is conjecture, you've not posted one shred of evidence for the existence of such, whilst I have posted evidence to the contrary. It's social power that dominates human social groups, has been and always will be. Trump and Putin are not exactly prime physical specimens.
>this shaman would certainly not have been a random faggot with a big penor.
Shamans would understand and embody the divine feminine better than most men. There's plenty of evidence to support that shamans were more likely to be homosexual. And I believe there is evidence to support faggots have larger penors than usual. There was certainly a lot of large phallus worship amongst shamans.

>faggot
>fucking a wife
wut?

Well thats conjecture again. Where is your evidence that such things happened?
>The notion of a tribal strongman leader who holds all the executive power is conjecture
Its not because its an axiomatic fact. Its well accepted and generally know that the strong man leader holds all the executive power. We can even prove this by looking at how today, where physical power holds far less importance than it used to, strongman leaders are still the people who are most often in positions of power.

>I have posted evidence to the contrary. It's social power that dominates human social groups, has been and always will be
Nothing you posted indicates such a thing. You posted evidence that shamans had an important role in society, but not that they had any executive power, nor that "social power" (whatever that is) is more powerful than physical power.

>Shamans would understand and embody the divine feminine better than most men. There's plenty of evidence to support that shamans were more likely to be homosexual
You're going off the rails with conjecture again. Nothing indicates that shamans would have been homosexuals. Shamans were elders, they were physically weak because they were old not because they were fags. They are just old and wise men, not homosexuals.

I'm not talking about a literal homosexual, just a feminine guy/"faggot".

A bigger junk isn't a threat and your ability to survive isn't based on physical strength.

It was never survival of the fittest for humans it was always survival of the kindest. Aggressiveness and dominant behaviour is awful for survival, look at the tribals in Africa. They don't resemble big warrior hunter stereotypes at all, the strongest men are skinny and playful not big and serious.

>Strong man leader holds all the executive power.
Ebbs and flows, there are perioids where people reject the strong man and periods where he is wanted. We're currently seeing a return to strongman-type politics with the implication the previous period was not one dominated by strongmen.
>You posted evidence that shamans had an important role in society, but not that they had any executive power
I think at a tribal scale, the tribal leader would have held the executive power, the evidence I posted indicates the leader would more likely be an elder or shaman. Not somebody gifted with superior strength.
>strongman leaders are still the people who are most often in positions of power.
Visible power, not actual hierarchical power. Ostensible leaders are known as puppets for a reason.
>Nothing you posted indicates such a thing
Evidence that they would have held executive roles in tribal societies as tribal leaders.
>nor that "social power" (whatever that is) is more powerful than physical power.
What it is: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political)
It's axiomatically more powerful than individual strength. Strongman wields two fists, the social leader can wield hundreds of pairs of fists irrespective of his individual strength.

Yeah sure. Whatever nick bate.

>Nothing indicates that shamans would have been homosexuals.
Wrong.

>The pre-Confucian and pre-Taoist tradition of China was predominately shamanistic. Male same-sex love was believed to have originated in the mythical south, thus homosexuality is sometimes still called "Southern wind". From this period, numerous spirits or deities were associated with homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism. These include Chou Wang, Lan Caihe, Shan Gu, and Yu the Great, and Gun.

>Other Australian mythological beings include Labarindja, blue-skinned wild women or "demon women" with hair the colour of smoke. Stories about them show them to be completely uninterested in romance or sex with men, and any man forcing his attention upon them could die, due to the "evil magic in their vaginas". They are sometimes depicted as gynandrous or intersex, having both a penis and a vagina. This is represented in ritual by having their part played by men in women's clothes

>Other Polynesian LGBT gods include the gay couple Pala-Mao and Kumi-Kahi, and the bisexual goddess Haakauilanani, who was both servant and lover of the "Earth mother" creator goddess Papa and her husband Wakea. Non-divine LGBT characters also exist in Polynesian mythology, such as the (male) shaman Pakaa and his chief and lover Keawe-Nui-A-'umi, and the famed fisherman Nihooleki, who was married to a woman but also had a relationship with the pig god Kamapua'a. Kamapua'a was also responsible for sending the love-god Lonoikiaweawealoha to seduce Pele's brother gods Hiiakaluna and Hiiakalalo, hence distracting them from attacking him. Kamapua'a's other male lovers included Limaloa, the bisexual god of the sea and mirages.

And so on. I'll post more if you want.

>Nothing indicates that shamans would have been homosexuals.
homosexuality and transsexuality is considered to be related to shamanism for quite a long already

>In Inuit shamanism, the first two humans were Aakulujjuusi and Uumarnituq, both male. This same-sex couple desired company and decided to mate

>Third gender, or gender variant, spiritual intermediaries are found in many Pacific island cultures, including the bajasa of the Toradja Bare'e people of Celebes, the bantut of the Taosug people of the south Philippines, and the bayoguin of the pre-Christian Philippines. These shamans are typically biologically male but display feminine behaviours and appearance

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_themes_in_mythology

figuratively whomst'd've?

>if a small dicked faggot tried to fuck your wife
You do realize why you're an idiot for saying that right?

He's using the word faggot to describe an effeminate but not homosexual male.

>human race has advance to a point where it's population no longer breeds itself anymore (at least certain species.)
Do you divide a race into different species?

Hahaha ok what? Take a look at all the tribal people living today, the most outgoing members have authority not the strongest ones. At best the strong get honorary places when celebrating.

Again, survival of the fittest was never a thing for humans, only apes.

how do so many people have big penis, why am i do below average

Attached: 1544131214518.gif (240x240, 644K)

is it some penisboxing

so the human penis is literally shaped like a shovel to scoop out others semen?

because you're made to be a pet for a man with a massive cucumber.
your little pickle is there to remind you of that.

Because God knows the world needs sissies and let them live as a gift to mankind

>So it begs the question, how the fuck did they survive and in such large numbers?

If you weren't so busy repressing your homosexuality with pseudoscience, you'd understand that your whole question is stupid.

>Ebbs and flows
Not in early society. Not even today in many places. Again, look at Putin.

>I think at a tribal scale, the tribal leader would have held the executive power
That tribal leader was a strongman.

What you posted does not state that shamans were leaders, merely that they held more power than the average tribesmen.

>Visible power, not actual hierarchical power.
Hierarchical power comes from the ability to excercise physical power
>Ostensible leaders are known as puppets for a reason.
Leaders who are accused of being puppets are also accused of being weak and impotent. Look at Obama for example

>Evidence that they would have held executive roles in tribal societies as tribal leaders.
Thats not what the claim was
>It's social power that dominates human social groups, has been and always will be
Nothing you posted indicates that, and nothing you posted indicates that if such a thing was true, shamans would hold that power. Infact, if you define "social power" as popularity, it has always been strongmen that have been populist leaders. Look at Trump for example.

Again, nothing you posted states that shamans had executive power, it just states they had some form of power, just more than the average tribesman.

>What it is: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political)
That hinges on the ability to exercise physical power. If you have the support of tons of people who are equally incapable of exercising physical power like yourself, you are back to square one.

>It's axiomatically more powerful than individual strength.
Its not axiomatically more powerful. Its not more powerful at all. You can round up all the people you want, but if the person on the other hand has the guns, then you'll just get blown to bits. And again, thats today where physical power holds less importance. Back in the day, it was basically everything. All power is physical power.

"Traps aren't gay"

You're disgusting.

>you will never be a real man's pet
Is this why I'm so depressed?

Also, the picture you paint of a strongman being on his own is absurd. Strongmen werent big muscular dudes, they were powerful men with the respect and subordination of the warrior class. Thats what gave them their power.

>fuck if i know, but i wanna gag on his cock.
Fucking same dude

Well thats cool, but we are not talking about literal homosexuals here, just effeminate men.

That said, i think the claim is absurd anyways. Shamans are just old wise men, they don't have anything to do with homosexuality as a rule. Maybe certain outliers, but on average they are just old and wise men with tons of life experience and understanding of the world.

>evolution is pseudoscience
Cope

Yeah. Thats why the head of the penis has that flared out shape. It creates a vacuum in the vagina and sucks out the other mans sperm.

>Not in early society.
Citation needed. There were times of peace and times of war even then. Literally nothing has changed.
>What you posted does not state that shamans were leaders,
The most common types [of tribal chiefs] are the chairman of a council [of elders], the war chief (may be an alternative or additional post in war time), the hereditary chief, and the politically dominant medicineman.
Shamans and weak elder were leaders more often than war chiefs. I'll simplify the above quote for you: tribal leaders were commonly politically dominant medicineman.
>Hierarchical power comes from the ability to excercise physical power
And physical power can be exercised to a greater degree through social power.
>Leaders who are accused of being puppets are also accused of being weak and impotent. Look at Obama for example
Simply not true. Putin himself has been accused of being a puppet several times and look at how you view him.
>Thats not what the claim was
That's what the evidence shows.
>Nothing you posted indicates that.
Yes, it does. Not sure how you're still not getting this.

>Infact, if you define "social power" as popularity
I do not, that would be a gross oversimplification. I posted a great wiki link that goes into it.
>Again, nothing you posted states that shamans had executive power,
I literally posted evidence that indicates they, as well as elders, would have been tribal chiefs. Chiefs. That is the seat of executive power is it not?
>That hinges on the ability to exercise physical power. If you have the support of tons of people who are equally incapable of exercising physical power like yourself, you are back to square one.
Agreed, but seeing as how the elder and the shaman acting as tribal chiefs can indeed exercise that power, the point is moot.
>You can round up all the people you want, but if the person on the other hand has the guns, then you'll just get blown to bits
If you have 1 AR, and I have 5 people with Skorpions who will obey my orders without question, despite having no gun myself, I have more power than you. Social power. Stop being an absolutist, you can never have all the strength to yourself. Even weaklings en masse can take you down.

>Also, the picture you paint of a strongman being on his own is absurd.
You do exactly the same thing here:
>You can round up all the people you want, but if the person on the other hand has the guns, then you'll just get blown to bits.
I think on some level you understand that individual personal strength isn't as important as social power:
> they were powerful men with the respect and subordination of the warrior class. Thats what gave them their power.
And there were times when the warrior classes ruled, and there were times when the theological classes ruled, and there were times when purely political hereditary rulers ruled, despite not having physical strength or social power.
Even in primitive societies, it was more complex than you're allowing yourself to believe.

Traps are called traps because their feminine and frail looks serve to disarm stronger men as they don't register as threats. Meanwhile the trap impregnates their wife behind their back and passes on the trap genes, continuing the line of femboy/trap. They're the perfect parasite.

Attached: 7zb9ED3.jpg (500x465, 33K)

You make the claim, you provide citation.

>tribal leaders were commonly politically dominant medicineman.
It says
>The most common types of tribal chiefs are elders, then war chiefs, then the hereditary chief, then the medicineman
Your own quotes backs me up and proves you wrong, lol.

Elders=/=shamans.

I'll also explain to you once again that a strongman is not literally a big muscular man. Its a strong leader who is skilled in leading men and has their respect. Those men are the men who also hold all the social power.

Shamans hold neither social nor physical power. Once again, i hope you'll understand this time, shamans do hold more power than the average tribesman, but their power pales in comparison to the strongmen and elders.

>And physical power can be exercised to a greater degree through social power.
1.Not true. 10 warriors will win against 20 common folk in a battle.
2. Even if we assume its true, strongmen hold more social power as well.

>Simply not true
Simply true. Putin has never been accused of being a puppet lol, if anything people say he is a puppetmaster. Its less imposing leaders like Merkel and Obama who are always being accused of being puppets. You are simply bending the facts, which is odd, because i don't get why you care so much about this conversation to go to such lengths to defend an indefensible position.

>That's what the evidence shows.
Lets go back in this specific exchange
>You: It's social power that dominates human social groups, has been and always will be
>Nothing you posted indicates such a thing.
>Evidence that they would have held executive roles in tribal societies as tribal leaders.
>Thats not what the claim was
You say "social power is more important, the evidence suggests that". I say that nothing you posted says anything about that. Then you reply "the evidence suggests shamans were more powerful" (which it doesnt but thats beside the poin). Are you alright lad? You are not even adressing the point lol

>Yes, it does. Not sure how you're still not getting this.
It doesn't, but it doesnt matter because your point is that shamans are the most powerful people in a society, and your own evidence disproves your point in several ways. Not only do they not hold social power, they also are the least powerful of those who hold political power.

I really dont see why you are so insistent on defending your position. Its not a big deal dude, we're literally discussing a crackpot theory on why feminine men with big dicks exist, lol.

>but the penis functions doubly as an apparatus for sucking the semen of other males from the womb
The penis does not have the ability to "suck" anything out of anything. Moreover, what the fuck are you doing fucking a woman who just had sex with another dude?

raping her ofc
it's a procreation strategy too

>In social science and politics, power is the capacity of an individual to influence the conduct (behaviour) of others
Your link says that though. Why do you have a habit of posting information that contradicts your point and proves the counterpoint.
>I literally posted evidence that indicates they, as well as elders, would have been tribal chiefs.
The evidence you posted placed shamans below war chiefs in the political hierarchy, lol.
>Agreed, but seeing as how the elder and the shaman acting as tribal chiefs
Elder only, not shaman.
>If you have 1 AR, and I have 5 people with
Its more like the shaman has a couple tribesfolk and the strongman has an army.

>You do exactly the same thing here:
No i dont. I illustrate a point using the reductio ad absurdum, even in a scenario as ridiculously skewed as when one man with physical power squares off against a mob of powerless people, the man with physical power would win. I never say that strongmen operate on a solitary basis, that would be absurd and i even go to great lengths to explain to you why that makes no sense.

>And there were times when the warrior classes ruled, and there were times when the theological classes ruled, and there were times when purely political hereditary rulers ruled
Dude, there was no such thing as a theological class in 7000 BC.

Yet another anti white psy op thread.

Attached: 1550450294430.gif (300x248, 614K)

>fuck niggers. Fuck jews. Fuck alk the faggot closet cucks posting in this thread larping as men having a reasonable. You are weak faggot nigger dick sucking disgraces

Attached: ep82e9hxe4t0t68epbk8-1.jpg (700x467, 37K)