I'd imagine Wyoming Public Schools would just say it was God's wrath on homosexuals.

And hemophiliacs.

And that first black guy that ****ed that goddamn monkey

They're still taller than Chinese women. This is true of every ethnic group on earth. You're only adding to my argument.

That's incorrect. What you are describing is just ordinary natural selection. Sexual selection is driven by competition between members of the same species to procure a mate.

From wiki:
OH's response to this covered it. That doesn't explain the height difference between men and women. It does explain, for example, why people in the west today are taller than they were 200 years ago. But that affects both sexes.

We are a clearly sexually dimorphic species. Meaning there are clear physiological and even behavioral differences between men and women on average. Where ever sexual dimorphism exists, sexual selection is one of the primary driving forces behind it. That's not my theory. That's mainstream science.

The height example wasn't even the point. It's just the tip of the iceberg. There are countless examples of differences that can be most plausibly explained by sexual selection.

You guys seem to agree by in large that women are the more selective sex sexually. I guess at this point you should explain why you believe that and yet don't expect that dynamic to result in certain traits being more prevalent in men. That is the natural consequence of sexual selection.

And girls from Wyoming are probably prudes.

I don't disagree with sex ed being better I am just generally cynical. Probably the two main reasons people have unsafe sex is cause condoms and birth control can be expensive and it just feels better to go raw lol.

May be true for guys but naive girls don't use birth control because they're afraid to ask their parents or be slut shamed if they admit they're sexually active. Girls don't use condoms because they believe and/or give in to boys when they say condoms are "too uncomfortable," or they "don't fit" or "if you really loved me you'd let me."

I’m like 90% with you but I still feel like you you’re not giving enough deference to my point that the seemingly most plausible theories often don’t hold up under the strict scrutiny of science.

What you’re describing is almost identical to what Richard Dawkins theorized. And Desmond Morris for that matter. I like that stuff and think it’s important to understand and I’ve read The Naked Ape, The Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Gene, and a couple others by Dawkins.

But it’s also, like I said, important to see what EO Wilson has to say on the matter.

Sorry for the braggadocio litany on what I’ve read (all pop science anyway really)

It’s just that when you get into the specifics of men are like this because... and women are like this because... just because it makes good sense doesn’t mean it pans out. I know I said I’d drop it but I guess you pulled me back in for one more try.

That’s why a decent man puts a condom on his dick without being asked.

Have you really heard men say that ****? That’s ****ing weak sauce.

That’s the rub. Pun intended.

But if you’re going to go raw you gotta talk it out in advance. Hook ups should be all condoms all the time.

I’ve gone raw on one night stands though. Jesus that’s crazy.

that's all true but I don't see how sex ed will change that

Problem is you can lecture kids all day on what they should do. Don't do drugs. Some have sex or if you do have safe sex. Go to college. Etc etc. Most people know what they're supposed to do. We just don't do it.

Well, in science there's always the possibility that something we thought we knew gets overturned. You can say the same thing with the bird example. What makes you more comfortable with that than the same concept being applied to human beings?

It doesn't mean it's sacrosanct and can never be disproven. But it is the most plausible explanation. You can literally say the same thing about climate change or even gravity. Yet when it comes to describing ourselves, that's when we become uncomfortable.

I'vr read the naked ape too and I reject the comparison. That was far more speculative than what I'm saying. I'm literally just taking this from my understanding of mainstream biology. I'm not going out on a whim out suggesting anything original.

As for Dawkins...I think the selfish gene holds up pretty well and is actually the modern orthodoxy. Some people just misunderstand the book to mean we're inherently selfish. That's just failing to see his point. Maybe there's something else you're referring to but I'm not sure.


And yes I tried to drop it too cause I'm sure we are boring everyone else to tears but I do find this interesting and elph bumped it back up so I had to respond. Maybe this needs it's own thread or something.