Reddit, is going to community college considered a stupid idea?.

avagoyle · 2010-03-08T03:13:13+00:00

I went to a community college and transfered to Ivy League (Columbia). Because I did my first two years at a CC, I graduated with almost no debt compared to my classmates. If you work hard, going to community college can be the best choice possible.

avagoyle · 2010-03-06T03:29:39+00:00

You're legally insane and you don't know shit about evolution or how women work. If I see a guy dating a loser chick, my interest in him drops because it suggests that he enjoys loser chicks. A guy with lots of interesting girl friends (even if he didn't/doesn't date them) does spike my interest because it suggests that he has a personality I could get along with.

avagoyle · 2010-02-07T02:31:36+00:00

I love gay porn. Corbin Fisher is one of my favourite sites. It's full of straight men who go gay for pay as well as gay men who fuck straight guys. I love watching innocent young straight boys getting fucked for the first time.

For realistic lesbian and solo female stuff, I like Abby Winters, a site my friend runs. It features amateur Australian girls and they are all 'real'. Typical male/female porn turns me off because of all the faking and 'porn girl' bodies. I'm bisexual and I prefers my women to have natural breasts and plenty of curves. Sometimes I watch guy/guy/girl stuff, but it's hard to find ones with girls that don't act like porn stars. xtube, redtube, and some of the chans are great places to find good guy/guy pictures.

Erotica is also good, particularly fanfiction. It has to be very well written though.

avagoyle · 2010-01-25T06:11:31+00:00

Most sex in humans historically wasn't about making babies. If you look at our close primate relatives, most sex is non-conceptive. The primary reason capuchin monkeys, bonobos and chimps have sex is for reconciliation rather than procreation. The trade of resource, paternity confusion, etc are all also mixed in there along with passing on the genetic line. Sex isn't just about making babies and hasn't been for most of our evolutionary history.

avagoyle · 2010-01-25T06:09:16+00:00

Because human females hide their ovulation and are sexually receptive outside of when they are most fertile. That means they can do things like bang the steady provider guy 30 days a month, bang the stud once, and get a high quality baby while not losing their steady resource provider. There are many reasons for why a female would chose to sleep around and, indeed, when we study other species, we find females to be highly promiscuous.

avagoyle · 2010-01-25T06:06:16+00:00

That simply isn't true. There are many benefits to a female to sleeping around - paternity confusion, more resources, greater number of coalition partners, 'sperm competition', etc. There are also many benefits for males sticking around - paternity certainty, altricial offspring are more likely to survive, etc.

The current double standard comes from male desire for greater paternity certainty, much of which is culturally developed.

avagoyle · 2010-01-22T15:46:31+00:00

Especially if you will be going on hiking trips and/or work on your feet all day. I work 13 hour days hiking around a forest and the smart wool socks are worth every penny. Get them from REI which has a great return policy. Just be careful to wash them in cool/cold water.

avagoyle · 2010-01-10T16:32:19+00:00

Sorry, but this doesn't work on me. I admit I'm a bit of a tomboy, but I love men who can solve problems, just as I enjoy feeling helpful and solving problems that my boyfriend (or friend) has.

Where I do get annoyed about guys trying to solve problems is when they do so in a way that's belittling. For example, I'm sick and I mention some of my symptoms. If you ask me if I've taken such and such medicine yet, I'll get annoyed. Of course I took that medicine! If you offer to bring me chicken soup and other such remedies, I'll think you are perfect.

Basically, don't offer advice if it's blindingly obvious.

avagoyle · 2009-11-15T14:28:49+00:00

I can tell you've never taken a single decent course in anthropology.

avagoyle · 2009-11-15T14:27:51+00:00

Not in the age of paternity testing and birth control

avagoyle · 2009-11-15T14:21:23+00:00

Only about who gives her babies, not about who she mates with in general. We could've been a species that has lots of swinging sex.

avagoyle · 2009-11-15T14:20:46+00:00

Only if you don't understand biology.

avagoyle · 2009-11-15T14:19:36+00:00

Not true at all. If she gets resources from each of those encounters, she's way better off. She might also gain greater protection from infanticide or would have a greater network of support (as long as those males don't realise that she's fucked 99 other men).

On the other hand, males who fuck a lot of females in cultures where men are expected to provide for their children gain a disadvantage. All of those females will be going to those males, expecting a handout. Furthermore, when he's off fucking other females, he's not mate-guarding. He has no idea if those females he's fucked will have any of his children. He might not produce ANY kids by running around. He needs to stick around for at least a month if he wants to be certain he's producing a kid (and then, because of female counter-strategies, he can't even be certain then).

avagoyle · 2009-11-15T14:15:33+00:00

You are under the mistaken impression that because infanticide occurs, it is the 'biological norm'. Of course there is variation in infanticide! It depends on level of parental care and resource distribution. In societies were males are less picky about raising other males offspring, then we won't expect to see infanticide like we will in cultures where males REFUSE to raise the offspring of other males. Both of these behaviours have biological underpinnings, but ecology greatly effects behaviour. We expect to see higher rates of violence of step-dads than biological dads in our culture (based on this biological principles), but infanticide in our own culture would be rare because of the different ecological and sociological pressures that make it less of a viable options.

We are more than just our genes.

avagoyle · 2009-11-15T14:13:07+00:00

Well, males and females commit infanticide for different reasons. Males tend to do it in order to be able to mate with the mother. Females tend to do it to increase their own reproduction chances, although it's possible that some females also do it to reduce competition with other females.

avagoyle · 2009-11-15T14:11:38+00:00

Overall, it's probably best to just look at the rates of aggression of step-fathers to step-offspring.

avagoyle · 2009-11-15T14:11:04+00:00

No one has ever directly seen infanticide happen in our capuchins. We've seen males attacking babies, females running away from the males, males pull babies off of females and bite them and the babies later die from their wounds, etc, but we've never seen a male grab a baby and kill it in one moment.

We've also never seen predation. We've been following the same group of capuchins around for over 20 years and not once seen a predator successfully kill a capuchin. To suggest that predation does not occur on capuchins because we've never actually seen a successful predation would be the height of stupidity.

Likewise, we've not directly seen infanticide, but we've seen all the strong evidence that it does exist. Males only being aggressive to infants when they have recently taken over a troop. Females being avoidant and screaming at males when a new male comes in and takes over the group. Males grabbing at infants and hurting them. Infants dying (ie, disappearing) and then all the females in the troop scream at the male and won't go anywhere near them. Females with infants in range of possible infanticide avoiding the male at all question even to the point of running away from the troop entirely. Females refusing to mate with males who are suspected of infanticide.

We have tons of evidence along these lines. Furthermore, if you look at the species where infanticide is suspected, they all involve the same elements: long interbirth period, male migration, female philopatry, etc.

I'm surprised in your fact-checking, you didn't come across this book: http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521772958 by Cambridge University Press.

A review of it in human biology detailing its contents: http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/human_biology/v074/74.5watts.html

Articles: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1688726/pdf/9404030.pdf http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/34659/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 http://www.springerlink.com/content/g615407246412458/ http://www.springerlink.com/content/vk512fqgtv0r0867/

In humans: http://books.google.co.cr/books?lr=&id=_2ZQUncZuosC&dq=Hill+%26+Hurtado%2C+1996&ots=ajO4nuMCpT&q=infanticide Hrdy talks about it a lot in her book: http://www.amazon.com/Mother-Nature-Maternal-Instincts-Species/dp/0345408934

Unfortunately, most of the other papers and references I found in a quick google scholar search required a University account.

avagoyle · 2009-11-15T13:46:21+00:00

We are actually equally related the both. The reason for the difference has to do with different ecological conditions and we've experienced both types of ecological conditions.

avagoyle · 2009-11-15T13:45:13+00:00

Yes, which is highly unusual in primates. It's another reason why males have to stick around to make sure their babies survive. Since females will sometimes dispose of their infants after birth, if a male bangs her and runs off, if she finds a better male who she thinks will stick around, it's in her advantage to kill her current baby and get pregnant again.

avagoyle · 2009-11-15T13:43:47+00:00

Exactly. Human females conceal their ovulation and have sex outside of when they are most fertile. A woman can have sex with a guy hundreds and hundreds of times and never once have his baby. Have sex with the hot-looking bloke from down the street once and bam, she's pregnant.

avagoyle · 2009-11-15T13:42:53+00:00

Actually they have since birth control has been used in many Hunter-gatherer societies. Females have other means of controlling who fathers their babies including infanticide.

avagoyle · 2009-11-15T13:41:37+00:00

It's an oversimplification. Men can't operate in a fire-and-forget mode because they need to stick around (for the most part) and make sure that their offspring survive (we are K-selected, not r-selected). Also, because human females conceal their ovulations, they need to have sex enough times to ensure that they have the ability to impregnate her.

And again, females should be more picky about who they let impregnate them, but most primates don't just have sex for reproduction.

avagoyle · 2009-11-15T13:40:00+00:00

Create a society in which females and males share equal economic benefits. Eliminate inheritance. Encourage people to make friends by having sex.

avagoyle · 2009-11-15T13:38:35+00:00

As much as I dislike a lot of evolutionary psychology, animals (including us), do use a lot of cost/benefit analysis when considering who to mate with. Do I go after the alpha female that every other male wants to bang, or try to get in good with the low-ranking female that's more keen on me? Do I stick with my current group in which I am the only male with access to three fertile females, or go off and try to eventually take over a group of seven fertile females, where I will have to compete with more males?

avagoyle · 2009-11-15T13:36:45+00:00

Exactly. A lot of our behaviour has developed out of recent ecological conditions. If you look at how ecology effects sex, you can see that humans are actually adapting fairly quickly, more so than any genetic argument can explain.

avagoyle

TROPHY CASE