This is incredibly important stuff!

I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Neanderthal women were ugly. I mean, they
> were REALLY ugly. Unless you were into men.
> In which case Neanderthal women were
> probably quite attractive.

And this is true. Forget hairy nipples, I bet they were sporting
all kinds of facial hair...

> There wasn't exactly "Massively" amounts of
> sexual dimorphism going on with Neanderthals.

Nope. Even the women were quite muscular. I mean, if you're
into stocky, brutishly muscular men then you would love, Love,
LOVE Neanderthal women...

AND THEN...

> I've read pieces that claimed that Neanderthal
> men has small weewees.
>
> Probably true.

They didn't need big ones. They weren't sexually selected. And
tangly bits are a point of vulnerability to both attackers and the
elements.

Some morons claimed that their weewees were too small to
interbreed with so called moderns.

Bull.

Neanderthals had bigger brains than we do -- big heads -- and
if you ask any woman who has ever given birth they'll tell you
that it's the baby's head squeezing out of them that really
hurts...

What I'm saying is that a Neanderthal vagina had to accommodate
a much larger head than a so called modern. So it's not like they
had tiny Va Jay-Jays. They were probably bigger than the lady parts
on the so called moderns...

Neanderthals did just fine, even if they had tiny dicklettes.

(I don't know if they did, I'm just saying IF the claims are correct and
they did have little tiny dicklettes then...)

> So Neanderthals probably didn't have a lot of
> protruding genitalia, is what I'm saying here. Even
> nude, even full frontal, you may not have had much
> in the way of visual cues as to which was the male
> and which was the female...

This was the main point to the dicklette tangent. Well. The seemingly
tangent...

Give them lots of body hair -- male & females -- lots of pubes going on
down there, with the lack of sexual dimorphism you could be forgiven
if you mistake a female for a male, or vice versa.

Thus; Homosexuality is a Neanderthal trait!

> You could argue they were bisexual but that's not
> really true. They would have been having sex with a
> distinctly male body type. They would have been
> attracted to/boinking a very masculine figure.

They liked 'em some boi booty...

> ...it's not like they were chasing masculine and
> feminine forms.

That is, until so called moderns showed up.

> Wait. That is, until Hss showed up. Then they would
> have had a sexually selected population -- women
> bred to be attractive & receptive!

As opposed to men with vaginas who were built like a
Sherman tank & twice as strong.

> Males bred to be attractive, too, but not a lot of
> chance of a successful fertilization there...

I bet they tried. I bet they tried a lot.

> So, first we had Homo Erectus and then later, with
> Neanderthal, we had homo Erections!

From Homo Erectus to homo Erections: The gay
Neanderthal story!

Say nothing if you agree.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/648870541164527616

On 1.5.2021. 22:32, I Envy JTEM wrote:
>
> This is incredibly important stuff!
>
> I Envy JTEM wrote:
>> Neanderthal women were ugly. I mean, they
>> were REALLY ugly. Unless you were into men.
>> In which case Neanderthal women were
>> probably quite attractive.
>
> And this is true. Forget hairy nipples, I bet they were sporting
> all kinds of facial hair...
>
>> There wasn't exactly "Massively" amounts of
>> sexual dimorphism going on with Neanderthals.
>
> Nope. Even the women were quite muscular. I mean, if you're
> into stocky, brutishly muscular men then you would love, Love,
> LOVE Neanderthal women...
>
> AND THEN...
>
>> I've read pieces that claimed that Neanderthal
>> men has small weewees.
>>
>> Probably true.
>
> They didn't need big ones. They weren't sexually selected. And
> tangly bits are a point of vulnerability to both attackers and the
> elements.
>
> Some morons claimed that their weewees were too small to
> interbreed with so called moderns.
>
> Bull.
>
> Neanderthals had bigger brains than we do -- big heads -- and
> if you ask any woman who has ever given birth they'll tell you
> that it's the baby's head squeezing out of them that really
> hurts...
>
> What I'm saying is that a Neanderthal vagina had to accommodate
> a much larger head than a so called modern. So it's not like they
> had tiny Va Jay-Jays. They were probably bigger than the lady parts
> on the so called moderns...
>
> Neanderthals did just fine, even if they had tiny dicklettes.
>
> (I don't know if they did, I'm just saying IF the claims are correct and
> they did have little tiny dicklettes then...)
>
>> So Neanderthals probably didn't have a lot of
>> protruding genitalia, is what I'm saying here. Even
>> nude, even full frontal, you may not have had much
>> in the way of visual cues as to which was the male
>> and which was the female...
>
> This was the main point to the dicklette tangent. Well. The seemingly
> tangent...
>
> Give them lots of body hair -- male & females -- lots of pubes going on
> down there, with the lack of sexual dimorphism you could be forgiven
> if you mistake a female for a male, or vice versa.
>
> Thus; Homosexuality is a Neanderthal trait!
>
>> You could argue they were bisexual but that's not
>> really true. They would have been having sex with a
>> distinctly male body type. They would have been
>> attracted to/boinking a very masculine figure.
>
> They liked 'em some boi booty...
>
>> ...it's not like they were chasing masculine and
>> feminine forms.
>
> That is, until so called moderns showed up.
>
>> Wait. That is, until Hss showed up. Then they would
>> have had a sexually selected population -- women
>> bred to be attractive & receptive!
>
> As opposed to men with vaginas who were built like a
> Sherman tank & twice as strong.
>
>> Males bred to be attractive, too, but not a lot of
>> chance of a successful fertilization there...
>
> I bet they tried. I bet they tried a lot.
>
>> So, first we had Homo Erectus and then later, with
>> Neanderthal, we had homo Erections!
>
> From Homo Erectus to homo Erections: The gay
> Neanderthal story!
>
> Say nothing if you agree.

I don't read this bubbling, I just glanced through. You are mentioning
"ugly" Neanderthal women. Well, they were, probably, ugly to us, who
knows? Homosexuality you don't inherit, this isn't a trait, just like
blindness isn't a trait, it is a handicap. We inherited homosexuality
from neanderthals just as much as we inherited blindness from
Neanderthals. What are you bubbling on?

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

> I don't

I don't believe you.

There's another strong case for the evolution of homosexuality:

Stress.

The important factor here would be stress on the mother; pre natal
stress.

One researcher claimed that WWII, for example, resulted in an increase
in homosexuals being born...

Why this model makes so much sense is because it would actually be
functional.

See, ordinarily homosexuality would be pretty rare and seemingly
random, as everyone has different ideas of stress, different tolerance
levels, different thresholds. AND "Homosexuality" would not have
mattered in women. For most of human history, for most cultures women
didn't make the reproductive choices. And, in a strongly sexually selected
culture -- as I imagine the original Hss were -- reproduction wasn't all
about sexual desire. In the richest more powerful families in history, and
even today, it very rarely was about sexual desire either...

Anyway, here's the model and keep in mind that there is actual science
behind it (Google it if you dare):

Mother is under stress. This results in her body releasing thingies, like
hormones, and these hormones durn the fetus gay.

Homo Hormones.

Has a ring to it, don't it?

Anyway, this happens in a fairly random fashion, pretty rare too, UNLESS
the population comes under stress! Then suddenly there's more and more
homosexual babies being born...

See what's going on here?

Homosexuality would increase when a population is under stress, and
under long term stress in particular. And this could be VERY beneficial.

You have workers/hunters, people to feed the population, who aren't
adding mouths to feed.

See how that could help?

And, again, there are actual studies that say this: Increase stress on moms,
increase the number of homosexuals being born.

AND THEN you look at Neanderthals! I mean, look at them. You can't tell
them apart -- the men from the women. When it came to Neanderthals,
"Sexual Dimorphism" was more a goal than a reality. So what triggered a
sexual response in a Neanderthal was a whole lot different from an Hss.

One was sexually selected, the other was Bromance City...

There. Now we have TWO evolutionary models for homosexuality.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/650581897703030784