As long as a woman's secretions pass a man's health and fertility
test, the main piece of information he is seeking is whether she has
recently had sex with another man. The man's body can then use this
information to change the number of killers and egg-getters he
introduces into hers. As we have already seen, crude adjustments are
made on the basis of what proportion of time he has spent with the
woman over the past week or since their last intercourse (Scene 6).
The less time he has spent with her, the greater the possibility that she
might contain sperm from another man and the more sperm he
introduces. This method works, but it is crude. If his body could
know whether sperm from another man are present, it could make a
much finer adjustment to its own sperm numbers.
In Scene 10, the man came home to a partner who, at some time
during the day, had clearly been unfaithful to him. She had covered
her tracks as best she could by changing the bed, washing the sheets
and preventing him from seeing her back in case he noticed the small
marks left by her lover. Most important of all, however, she had also
had a long bath to try to remove all traces of her lover from her pubic
hair, thighs and vulval lips. In all of this, she was obeying her
conscious mind, albeit driven by a body that wanted neither to be
beaten nor deserted.
Her body had ejected her lover's flowback many hours ago, but
some traces of semen always remain in the vagina, sometimes for up
to a day. At first, she had tried to avoid sexual contact with her
partner completely. Her body favoured the lover and wanted to give his sperm as easy a victory as possible. At
the same time, though, she did not want to lose her partner's support.
Consequently, when he began to nuzzle her vulva, and the risk of her
infidelity being discovered increased, she changed her strategy. She
switched from avoiding intercourse to precipitating it solely to
distract him from oral sex.
On the other side of town, the woman had returned home to a
suspicious partner. She had the advantage, however, that her vagina
contained no evidence of how close she had come to infidelity. As a
result, she had the opportunity to both reassure and mislead her
partner, not only verbally (by criticising the man she had been with)
but by forcing him to smell and lick her vulva so as to confirm her
innocence. By the end of the evening, both his mind and his body
should have been reassured.
Together, the two scenes of oral sex we have just witnessed
illustrate the interplay of reassurance and subterfuge that is a
hallmark of routine sex between couples. Men may not be able to
lick their partner's infidelity via oral sex, but they can certainly
collect information useful for deciding what to do next. In the short
term, this information can help men to prepare for sperm warfare. In
the medium term, it can help them to adjust the intensity with which
they guard their mate or search for another partner. In the long term,
it can help them to assess the desirability of desertion and, if their
partner produces a child, to judge the probability of the child having
been fathered by someone else. At the same time, through strategic
prevention or encouragement of oral sex, a woman can attempt to
reassure or dupe her partner with regard to the actual situation.
Of course, people do not always realise that they are indulging in
oral sex for the above reasons. Consciously, what a man thinks he is
doing when he licks a woman's genitals is stimulating her into
becoming lubricated for penetration. Most often, in the absence of
infidelity, what a woman thinks she is doing is seeking sexual
stimulation. Both of these things are happening, of course, but they
are merely the conscious veneer of the behaviour, not its ultimate
function. As in so much of sexual behaviour, the mind consciously pursues superficial stimulation at the behest of a
body aiming to achieve much more potent ends.
There is no intrinsic reason why licking a woman's genitals should
stimulate her sexually any more than stamping on her foot.
Nevertheless, one action is a sexual stimulus, the other is not. What
tends to happen in the evolution of sexual stimulation is that
unequivocal signs of sexual interest become stimulating, while other
signs do not. If this were not the case, males and females would be
continually responding sexually to the most irrelevant signals.
73-74
Most readers will recognise the seduction of the young
window-cleaner as a cliché (as, later, did the main character
in Scene 17 herself). It, or something similar, has been used as a not
very imaginative 'dramatic device' in a multitude of films, plays and
books. If the man involved is not a window-cleaner, he is an
electrician, a plumber, a builder, a TV repair man or (in Britain, the
biggest cliché of all) a milkman. In short, he is any man who has a
legitimate reason for visiting a woman in her home while her partner
is absent.
Indeed, so hackneyed is this scenario that there is a danger, if we
are not careful, of missing the important point: namely, that the
behaviour has become hackneyed precisely because it is so common.
As such, it plays an important role in the promotion of sperm warfare
— and hence in the paternity of children conceived via such warfare.
Why should the woman in the scene, and so many like her, suddenly
throw herself at two male visitors to her home? What is the
significance of the saga of her contraceptive pills? And how did she
benefit from her behaviour in terms of reproductive success?
When this scene began, the woman genuinely believed that she
didn't want another child. In order to prevent conception, she was
taking the pill and, when necessary, making doubly sure by forcing
her partner to use a condom. Then, in the midst of what, sexually,
was the most active week of her life, she 'forgot' to take contraceptive
precautions. Was this lapse of memory really a mistake, or was it a
subconscious strategy? And was it yet another example of a 'failure'
destined actually to increase a woman's reproductive success? What
this woman's body had really decided was that it didn't want another
child by her partner. Her brain was then simply coerced into finding a
convincing reason why they, as a couple, should avoid conception.
That reason was so convincing, she even managed to persuade herself
that she wanted to go back to work.
In her eyes, her partner had decreased in stature over the years. He
had failed to live up to the potential he had shown when she
committed her first two children to his genes. Now his health also was
failing, and he was proving less than robust. As far as she was
concerned, he had no saving graces in terms of intellect or character,
either. In effect, her body had decided that a third child should be
fathered by somebody with signs of a more robust genetic constitution
than him. So when the opportunity presented itself, her body made
sure that she took full advantage.
A woman is less likely to use contraception when she has sex with
somebody other than her partner. And it is not always because the
circumstances surrounding the infidelity make the use of
contraception difficult. The first time the woman in Scene 17 had sex
with her partner's boss or with the window-cleaner, it would have
been difficult to insist on their wearing a condom. But on subsequent
occasions she, and they, could have been better prepared — but they
weren't. In any case, she wasn't dependent on these men and on
condoms. Had she taken her pill at the appropriate time, she could still
have avoided conception. But she forgot. Was it really an accident, a
genuine lapse of memory? Or did her body subconsciously manipulate
her into forgetting, so that she conceived to a man other than her
partner?
The sudden but week-long surge of sexual excitement the woman
experienced was the outward manifestation of hormones produced
during her fertile period. We have already discussed (Scene 6) how
women become more interested in infidelity at this time. Her sudden
loss of sexual interest at the end of her week of infidelity marked the
end of her fertile period and, as it happened, the beginning of her
pregnancy. By the time her partner returned and accepted an
unprotected intercourse as a coming-home present, the woman will
already have been two weeks pregnant.
Women, like most female animals that hide the fertile phase of
their menstrual cycle, continue to have intercourse well into
pregnancy. This is the final touch by which they can confuse the males around them. If a woman lost interest in sex as soon as she
conceived, it would be a clear signal to the males around her that
conception had occurred. This would allow each of them to make
some assessment of who could and could not be the genetic father.
Continuing intercourse well into pregnancy guarantees the ultimate
confusion of all potential fathers. This explains why our main
character was keen to have unprotected intercourse with her partner
on his return. It meant that in his eyes, and even in hers, he could have
been the father of her third child, even though he wasn't.
Given such a short-lived and ideal opportunity for undetected
infidelity, the woman's body made a shrewd move in collecting sperm
from more than one man. She gained two benefits. First, she halved
her chances of being unlucky enough to collect sperm from a man
who just happened to be infertile (10 per cent of men, largely due to
sexually transmitted disease — Scene 11), despite appearing to be a
suitable genetic father (Scene 18). But secondly, by putting two men's
armies into competition, she increased her chances of being fertilised
by an ejaculate competent at sperm warfare (Scenes 6 and 21). She
might never again have such a perfect opportunity to conceive a child
with better genes than her partner could provide — not without
leaving him, anyway. We do not know which of the two competitors
was actually the father, but whichever he was, he was the man who
won the sperm war she had promoted.
When a woman has sex with two men over a short period of time,
she has three ways of influencing which of them fathers any child that
may result. First, she can have sex with one of the men at a more
fertile phase of her menstrual cycle (Scene 6). Secondly, she can
retain a larger sperm army from one of the males (Scenes 22 to 26).
Thirdly, like the woman in Scene 17, she can use modern
contraceptive techniques.
If a woman uses a barrier method, such as cap or condom, with one
man but not the other, she can prevent the former from entering sperm
into warfare at all. Alternatively, by using the pill and then not using
the pill, like the woman in the scene,
she can influence which man's sperm is most likely to have access to
an egg. Indeed, our main character made full use of modern
contraception in ensuring that she did not conceive via her partner.
The other two men, however, were given equal chances. All they had
to do was win a sperm war.
As we discussed in Scene 16, modern contraception may not have
much influence on how many children a woman has in her lifetime.
But it has provided her with a powerful and efficient tool with which
to enhance her natural ability to time when and via whom she
conceives. Rarely is contraception technology used in this way
consciously. But in the hands of a woman's urges it is a powerful new
weapon by which she can increase her reproductive success.
128-131
41-46
It is theoretically possible through casual sex for women to gain superior genes which are passed on to their children. Given men's proclivities with regard to a temporary sex partner, the economics of the mating marketplace render it far easier for a woman to get a man from a higher stratum or with better genes to have sex with her than it is for her to get him to marry her. A woman might try to secure the investment of a lower-ranking man by marrying him, for example, while simultaneously securing the genes of a higher-ranking man by cuckolding her husband. This dual strategy exists in Great Britain, where the biologists Robin Baker and Mark Bellis have discovered that women typically have affairs with men who are higher in status than their husbands.
One version of the better genes theory has been labeled the "sexy son hypothesis." According to this theory, women prefer to have casual sex with men who are attractive to other women because they will have sons who possess the same charming characteristics. Women in the next generation will therefore find these sons attractive, and the sons will enjoy greater mating success than the sons of women who mate with men who are not regarded as attractive by most women.
Evidence for this theory comes from the temporary and permanent mating study, which identified a key exception to women's more stringent selection criteria for permanent partners. Women are more exacting with regard to physical attractiveness in a casual encounter than they are in a permanent mate. This preference for physically attractive casual sex partners may be a psychological clue to a human evolutionary history in which women benefited through the success of their sexy sons.
Although we can never know for sure, anthropologists believe that many women during evolutionary history did not contract their own marriages; the evidence is that marriages arranged by fathers and other kin are common in today's tribal cultures, which are assumed to resemble the conditions under which humans evolved. The practice of arranged marriage is still common in many parts of the world as well, such as India, Kenya, and the Middle East. Arranged marriages restrict the opportunities for women to reap the benefits of short-term mating. Even where matings are arranged by parents and kin, however, women often exert considerable influence over their sexual and marital decisions by manipulating their parents, carrying on clandestine affairs, defying their parents' wishes, and sometimes eloping. These forms of personal choice open the window to the benefits for women of short-term mating, even when marriage is arranged by others. (The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating)
The logic of the mating market dictates that women will generally be able to get a more attractive partner for a casual sexual encounter than for a permanent husband. Attractive men are often willing to have sex with less desirable women, as long as they do not become encumbered by entangling commitments. Rock stars and sports stars perfectly illustrate this logic. They often have groupies for causal sex with no hint of commitment. This mating market logic leads to a disturbing consequence. Women married to men matched to their level of desirability will sometimes be tempted to have affairs with men whom they find sexier than their husbands.
Why risk discovery, ruin a good reputation, and chance abandonment by having an affair with a man higher than your partner on the mate value scale? Steve Gangestad and Randy Thornhill proposed one answer: Women can acquire better genes from higher value extrapair matings than from their regular mates. Good genes may bring better resistance to disease, increasing the health and hence survival of their children. Women, of course, don't think about these things consciously. Their passions for other partners are blind to the evolutionary functions that have shaped them. Women just need to find other men sexy; knowing why is unnecessary.
One indicator of good genes has emerged over the past decade; symmetry. Humans, like many organisms, show a physical arrangement characterized by bilateral symmetry. If you draw a line straight down the middle of your body, starting with your face, the two halves are more or less mirror images of each other. The "more or less" qualifier is the key, since no one is perfectly symmetrical. Each of us carries a host of small deviations from perfect symmetry, ranging from Cindy Crawford's small mole to Lyle Lovett's lopsided grin.
Deviations from symmetry have many causes, but they have been most strongly linked with two determinants. First, symmetry signals "developmental stability," a genetic resistance to pathogens and mutations. A person who is genetically susceptible to pathogens and mutations will develop a more lopsided face and body than those who are genetically resistant to pathogens and mutations. Second, symmetry is a sign of a genetic resistance to a host of other "environmental insults," such as extreme temperatures, poor nutrition in childhood, and exposure to toxins. It is, in short, a genetic marker of health.
Symmetry can be measured in practically any organism. With humans, researchers typically take a variety of measurements, such as feet, ankles, hands, wrists, elbows, and ears. By taking multiple measurements, researchers achieve a higher level of reliability in their index of actual symmetry. To study the effects of symmetry on human mating, Gangestad and Thornhill studied 203 heterosexual couples who had been involved in a romantic relationship for at least one month. After assuring participants of confidentiality and anonymity, they questioned each person about whether they had ever had sex with someone else while in their current relationship. They also queried participants about whether they had sex with someone else whom they knew was already married to, or seriously involved with, someone else. They then applied steel calipers to assess participants' degree of symmetry, taking seven measurements from each side of the body.
Gangestad and Thornhill discovered a groundbreaking result. Women preferentially chose symmetrical men as affair partners. Assuming that symmetry is a marker for genes for health, women who have affairs appear to select men who, for genetic reasons, are unusually healthy and whose genes than make children more healthy and resistant to diseases. Men who are rather asymmetrical are especially prone to being cuckolded by their more symmetrical rivals.
How do women "detect" such symmetrical men? The most obvious answer is simply to look. In extreme cases of asymmetry like Lyle Lovett or symmetry like Denzel Washington, women merely need to gaze through their own eyes. But there is a more subtle means by which women can detect symmetry - through their sense of smell. In an innovative study, Gangestad and Thornhill asked men who varied in symmetry to wear the same T-shirt for two days straight without showering or using deodorants. They instructed these men not to eat any spicy food - no peppers, garlic, onions, and so on. After two days, they collected the T-shirts, and then brought women into the laboratory to smell them. The women rated each on how good or bad it smelled. They were of course not aware of the purpose of the study in advance, nor did they know the men who had worn the T-shirts. The fascinating finding was that women judged the T-shirts that had been worn by symmetrical men as more pleasant smelling, but only if they happened to be in the ovulation phase of their menstrual cycle. So one clue to the mystery of how women detect men with good genes lies with the "scent of symmetry."
Some women pursue a "mixed" mating strategy - ensuring devotion and investment from one man while acquiring good genes from another. Women detect the scent of symmetry, prefer that scent when ovulating, and choose more symmetrical men as affair partners. This may not be good news for lopsided men. After all, the genes a man is born with are beyond his control, and it may seem a gross injustice that women are more likely to cheat on these men. But women's sexual psychology is designed neither for fairness nor justice. It is designed to help women reproduce more effectively, regardless of the pain inflicted on their partners.
There are two potential criticisms of this reasoning, but they turn out to crumble under close examination. The first is that modern women often don't want to have babies with their lovers, and so one might argue that the quality of their lover's genes is irrelevant. Women's sexual psychology, however, was forged in an evolutionary furnace lacking birth control. Sex led to babies regardless of a woman's conscious desire to reproduce or not. Ancestral women who had affairs with healthier, more symmetrical men tended to bear healthier, more symmetrical babies. Modern women have inherited from their successful ancestors an attraction to these me . The fact that roughly 10 percent of children today have genetic fathers other than their putative fathers suggests that these internal whisperings continue to operate today in the modern world.
A second possible objection is: Why wouldn't women want symmetrical mates as husbands as well as affair partners? The answer of course, is that they should and do. But the economics of the mating market means that most women are able to attract a more symmetrical man as an affair partner than a husband. Some women, in short, are able to get the best of both worlds - attracting investment from one man while obtaining superior genes from another.
Men's obsession with a woman's physical appearance and sexual availability results in what many women experience as objectification, or being treated as "sex objects." But men don't hold the monopoly on sexual objectification. The modern phenomenon of female rock groupies provides a perfect example. Groupies typically get neither investment nor attention nor much time from the rock stars whom they seek for sex. As Pamela des Barres observed in her book I'm with the Band: Confessions of a Groupie, a half-hour "quickie" can make a groupie's day. Most of these women do not delude themselves that the male rock stars will fall in love with them, have a relationship with them, or even remember their names in the morning. And they risk a lot by such brief flings - the loss of their regular boyfriends and the possibility of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. Why do they do it?
My studies with Heidi Greiling support an intriguing idea known as the theory of "sexy sons." Women who mate with sexy men tend to bear sexy sons. When these "sexy sons" grow up, they attract an above average number of women, thereby gaining a genetic edge on the competition. Their mothers gain in ultimate reproductive success through the increased reproduction of their sexy sons.
When evaluating qualities women want in a one-night stand outside of their regular relationship, women topped out in requiring the following attributes (using a 1-9 scale): sexy (8.7), highly desirable to the opposite sex (8.2), desires sex with you a lot (8.2), sensuous (8.2), physically attractive (8.6), good looking (8.3), sought after by members of the opposite sex (8.3), thinks you are sexy (8.3), and greatly desires you (8.3). Contrary to what women want in a regular partner, women seeking brief flings appear to go for the "studly" charmers who have what it takes to bed a variety of women. These are precisely the qualities that would give their sons a mating advantage in the next generation.
These same qualities shine through when women express the minimum percentile they require for various types of relationships. The contrast between the minimums women express for regular mates and for one-night stands is especially striking because women relax their standards for many qualities when seeking brief encounters. For degree of education, for example, women required husbands to be in the 61st percentile, but for one-night stands they required only the 47th percentile. In sharp contrast, women became more exacting in a one night stand on precisely the qualities one would expect according to the theory of sexy sons. Whereas they wanted their husband to be in the 58th percentile on sexiness, they wanted their brief flings to be in the 76th percentile. On physical attractiveness, they required husbands to be only in the 54th percentile, but demanded the 77th percentile for one-night stands. In brief encounters, it seems, women demand sexy partners who are highly desirable to other women, perhaps because their sons stand a greater chance of being sexy themselves. Women, of course, do not think these thoughts; there is no conscious calculus of genetic effects. They just find some men sexy and that's all they need to produce sons who will be sexually successful.
The Dangerous Passion: Why Jealousy Is as Necessary as Love and Sex. Buss, p. 160-164.
"DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IF THAT'S YOUR SON LOVE!" - COAL
https://twitter.com/barstoolsports/status/837708187717468160?lang=en
Lira has been linked with Drake, who claimed they were just making a video together. She’s also been with (reportedly) Meek Mill and most recently Migos rapper Quavo.
You may remember Hip Hop groupie Lira Galore from the time she was linked to Drake, Wale, Meek Mill or Rick Ross.
In fact, it was her past with Meek that ultimately ended her engagement to Ross.
AGAIN, LIKE MALE CHIMPANZEE'S, BLACK MALES (NIGGER RAPPERS, IN THIS CASE) TRY TO POACH (STEAL) MATES FROM ONE ANOTHER AND CUCKOLD ONE ANOTHER. AND LIKE A FEMALE CHIMPANZEE TRYING TO SECURE PATERNAL INVESTMENT AND RESOURCES (WEALTH) FROM ONE OR MORE MALE CHIMPANZEES, LIA EMPLOYS A PROMISCUOUS MATING STRATEGY (THIS IS ALSO AN INDICATION OF HER FATHERLESS HOUSEHOLD AND UPBRINGING), WHICH SIGNALS SEXUAL OPPORTUNITY (EASY SEX) FOR BLACK MALES WITH RELATIVE STATUS AND WEALTH WHILE BETTER POSITIONING HER TO GAIN STATUS AND RESOURCES FROM ONE OR MORE OF THESE BLACK MALES (NIGGER RAPPERS)! READ BELOW JACC!
In the latest addition, Brooke Scelza, a human behavioral ecologist at the University of California–Los Angeles, contends in Evolutionary Anthropology that not only do human females seek out multiple sexual partners as an evolutionary strategy, they opportunistically shift that strategy depending on the environmental context (more on that below). In other words, female sexuality is not so much blindly promiscuous as it is pragmatic.
...
While a great diversity of sexual norms exist around the world, ranging from strictly enforced monogamy to polyamory, according to Scelza’s new study there are two environmental contexts where women commonly choose multiple partners. The first is where women have more material support from their kin or economic independence from men more generally. This may explain why multiple mating is most common among small-scale matrilocal societies (in which women remain in their home village after marriage), such as the partible paternity societies of South America or the Mosuo of China. It may also explain why female infidelity has increased in Western societies as women have gained greater political and economic independence. (For example, Iceland was ranked first in gender equality by the World Economic Forum in 2013 at the same time that 67 percent of children were born out of wedlock, the highest rate in the Western world.) Under this scenario, women choose multiple partners because they have more options available to them, they can rely on their support network during transitional times, and they have greater personal autonomy.
The second environmental context Scelza identified is where the sex ratio is female-biased (indicating a scarcity of men) or there is a high level of male unemployment (indicating a scarcity of men who can provide support). Women may be trying to “make the best of a bad situation and capitalizing on their youth to improve their reproductive prospects.” In such environments women tend to have higher rates of teen pregnancy as well as illegitimate births. Multiple mating may be a way of hedging their bets in an unstable environment. By pursuing an ardent sexual strategy, women are able to choose the best potential males as well as gain the support they need in order to maximize their reproductive success.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/anthonybrowne.theobserver
'We don't all get the exact partner we want, we all make some compromise. That's true of humans as well. A woman might find a man who is good at providing food and looking after children, but she doesn't necessarily want him to be the father of her kids,' said Birkhead.
By being promiscuous, women can also ensure greater care for their children.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TL-udCLLFKE&lc=z23vulxjjn2rsjgr504t1aokgjsjmgmsbpcxbrhv2f23rk0h00410.1498608044512523"I'm Just Gonna Fuck A Nigga Bitch Mane...That's How You Make Niggas Mad, That's How You Get To A Bitch Ass Nigga...YOU FUCK HIS MOTHAFUCCIN' BITCH!...NIGGA!" - Joe
Rihanna Isn't Very Attractive. She Has A Huge Forehead On Top Of Other Facial And Bodily Disproportions. But This Is What Happens: A Female In The Entertainment Industry Gains A Little Fame And Status, A Fairly Attractive Male With High Status Goes Out With Her Or Dates Her Or Has A Relationship With Her And Then NIGGERS Look At Her As An Even Greater Status Symbol*. This Then Drives Them (NIGGERS) To Want To Steal (Poach) Her From Other Celebrity Males, FUCK Her, And Then Brag About FUCKING Her To Boost Their Own Status. NIGGERS Lose Sight Of The Fact That She's Not Even Attractive To Begin With Once Her Status Increases. They Just See Her As Another Object To Boost Their Own Status. (Does This Make Sense? It Sure Does, Especially To Those Of You Familiar With Evolutionary Psychology.)
THE ABOVE PAPER WILL TELL YOU WHAT THEY'RE THINKING. SCROLL TO THE MIDDLE OF IT AND BEGING READING WHERE YOU SEE THESE WORDS: THE POSITIONAL GOODS AND SOCIAL INFORMATION THEORY OF MATING
"a man who dates an unattractive woman experiences a moderate decrease in status, whereas a woman who dates an unattractive man experiences only a trivial decrease in status...having an unattractive mate hurts a man’s status more than it does a woman’s"
amzn.to/2t6cZs1
*Females Are STATUS INDICATORS For Those Of You That Are Unaware Of This Fact. That's One Of The Reasons Males Like To Be Seen With Highly Attractive Females (It Boosts Their Status). http://evostudies.org/2012/03/why-caesars-wife-must-be-above-suspicion-mates-function-as-honest-indicators-of-status-and-prestige-by-ben-and-bo-winegard/
Mezzy Mack
NOW, IT'S THIS UGLY GIRL'S TURN! (HER TURN TO BE USED AS A STATUS SYMBOL!) UGLY IN THE PHOTO BELOW KIND OF REMINDS ME OF ONE OF THE FERGUSON'S. STACY TO BE EXACT! THE FERGUSON'S MOTHER WAS A HEAVY DRINKER! A HEAVY MERLOT DRINKER!
BOY, IS SHE HIDEOUS LOOKING. SHE LOOKS LIKE A COMBINATION OF ROCKY (OF MASK FAME) AND THE CAT WOMAN (OF PLASTIC SURGERY FAME). IN OTHER WORDS, SHE'S ASYMMETRICAL AND DISTORTED LOOKING!
SEE THE SIMILARITIES?
SEE THE SIMILARITIES?
3 NIGGERS IN LESS THAN 3 YEARS. THAT'S SAYIN' SOMETHIN'! THAT'S SAYIN' THAT SIMILAR TO CHIMPANZEES, NIGGERS TRY TO POACH MATES FROM ONE ANOTHER AND THEN IMPREGNATE THE MATES THEY'VE POACHED REGARDLESS OF HOW ATTRACTIVE THE MATE THAT THEY'VE POACHED IS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE GOAL IN NIGGER CULTURE IS TO SHOW THAT A NIGGER CAN POACH ANOTHER NIGGERS MATE! THIS THEN BOOSTS THE NIGGER'S STATUS.
3 NIGGERS IN LESS THAN 3 YEARS. THAT'S SAYING SOMETHIN'! IT SAYIN' THAT SIMILAR TO CHIMPANZEES, NIGGERS TRY TO POACH (STEAL) MATES FROM ONE ANOTHER AND THEN IMPREGNATE THE MATES THEY'VE POACHED (STOLEN) REGARDLESS OF HOW ATTRACTIVE THE MATE THAT THEY POACHED (STOLE) IS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE GOAL IN NIGGER CULTURE IS TO SHOW THAT A NIGGER CAN POACH (STEAL) ANOTHER NIGGERS MATE! THIS THEN BOOSTS THE NIGGER'S STATUS.
"I'LL TAKE YOUR WIFE, GIVE HER BACK! N1N3 MONTHS AFTER THAT SIMILAC (AND COGNAC) NIGGAAAAAA!" - John Chainey (Smoker)
2 CHAIN SUCCINCTLY SUMMARIZING NIGGER CULTURE (r-selected NIGGER CULTURE).
Make That Foe!
"I'LL TAKE YOUR WIFE, GIVE HER BACK! N1N3 MONTHS AFTER THAT SIMILAC (AND COGNAC) NIGGAAAAAA!" - John Chainey (Smoker)
2 CHAIN SUCCINCTLY SUMMARIZING NIGGER CULTURE (r-selected NIGGER CULTURE).
(What Are Niggers With Wealth, Status, And Fame Thinking When They Get With Used And Abused Broads Like She? She's Been Drug Thru The Mudd By Other Niggers And These High-Ranking Niggers Still Go Out With Them And Don't Mind Being Seen With Them!)
BEFOE!
"Put YO Bitch On Her Knees Feed Her To The Team!" - Inglewood Family
THIS IS WHAT NIGGERS ULTIMATELY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR MATES! THEY WANT TO OBJECTIFY THEM (WHATEVER THAT MEANS) AND TREAT THEM LIKE PROPERTY THAT CAN BE USED, ABUSED, AND EVENTUALLY CONSUMED! NOW, I'M JUST WAITING FOR THE PHOTO OF HER WITH CUM ON HER FACE TO SURFACE! (THE AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION DATING BACK TO ABOUT 10,000 YEARS AGO ALLOWED HUMANS TO ACCUMULATE RESOURCES (STORE PLANTS, STORE ANIMALS) AND WITH ACCUMULATED RESOURCES HUMANS COULD DEVELOP SOCIAL HIERARCHIES (NON-EGALITARIAN CULTURES AND COMMUNITIES THAT FAVORED MALES WITH MORE RESOURCES)AND WITH SOCIAL HIERARCHIES HIGHER STATUS MALES COULD CREATE HAREMS!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCjdAhvUZdw
Start Listening To Ryan At The 2:25 Mark, Niggers. He's Saying EXACTLY What I'm Saying In The Paragraph Above! Do You Understand What He's Saying? (Niggers Cum On Bitches To Claim Them As Their Property Just As Dogs Piss On Trees To Claim Their Territory!
THE ABOVE PAPER WILL TELL YOU WHAT THEY'RE THINKING. SCROLL TO THE MIDDLE OF IT AND BEGING READING WHERE YOU SEE THESE WORDS: THE POSITIONAL GOODS AND SOCIAL INFORMATION THEORY OF MATING
"Put YO Bitch On Her Knees Feed Her To The Team!" - Inglewood Family
THIS IS WHAT NIGGERS ULTIMATELY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR MATES! THEY WANT TO OBJECTIFY THEM (WHATEVER THAT MEANS) AND TREAT THEM LIKE PROPERTY THAT CAN BE USED, ABUSED, AND EVENTUALLY CONSUMED! NOW, I'M JUST WAITING FOR THE PHOTO OF HER WITH CUM ON HER FACE TO SURFACE! (THE AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION DATING BACK TO ABOUT 10,000 YEARS AGO ALLOWED HUMANS TO ACCUMULATE RESOURCES (STORE PLANTS, STORE ANIMALS) AND WITH ACCUMULATED RESOURCES HUMANS COULD DEVELOP SOCIAL HIERARCHIES (NON-EGALITARIAN CULTURES AND COMMUNITIES THAT FAVORED MALES WITH MORE RESOURCES)AND WITH SOCIAL HIERARCHIES HIGHER STATUS MALES COULD CREATE HAREMS!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCjdAhvUZdw
Start Listening To Ryan At The 2:25 Mark, Niggers. He's Saying EXACTLY What I'm Saying In The Paragraph Above! Do You Understand What He's Saying? (Niggers Cum On Bitches To Claim Them As Their Property Just As Dogs Piss On Trees To Claim Their Territory!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ4OTo_DiFU
2:50 "I Shot It In Her Face And It Went 'AHH'"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaLmnnL_1Ug
"Lemme Buss A Nutt In YO FaaaaaaCe!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZqwM_mSwYQ
0:45 "Don't Forget To Wipe The Nut Off Ya Face!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKnyEfA-5e4
2:09 "WIPE YOUR FACE WITH A NAPKIN FROM KFC!"
(That's What The Black Man Wanna Do To You, Sista! Maybe Summa You Sistas Want That Tho!)
2:50 "I Shot It In Her Face And It Went 'AHH'"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaLmnnL_1Ug
"Lemme Buss A Nutt In YO FaaaaaaCe!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZqwM_mSwYQ
0:45 "Don't Forget To Wipe The Nut Off Ya Face!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKnyEfA-5e4
2:09 "WIPE YOUR FACE WITH A NAPKIN FROM KFC!"
(That's What The Black Man Wanna Do To You, Sista! Maybe Summa You Sistas Want That Tho!)
https://twitter.com/_baefromtexas/status/1098454945945341953
"HOW TO MAKE A FAITHFUL BITCH CHEAT ON HER MANE!" - MAC MALLENIUM
porn got yall thinking nutting on a girl’s face is normal & its not.. that shit disrespectful asf & i WILL slap tf out ur ass
"HOW TO MAKE A FAITHFUL BITCH CHEAT ON HER MANE!" - MAC MALLENIUM
The relevant archaeological evidence is scanty, and tells us little more than that our ancestors were nomadic hunter-gatherers who periodically migrated in response to climate changes, who sometimes cared for their injured offspring, and sometimes buried their dead. This bare description does not give us anything approximating the detailed understanding that we require. It can be enlarged somewhat using an approach called "cladistic analysis," which involves drawing conclusions from relevant similarities between closely related species. Around twenty million years ago the gorillas diverged from the chimpanzee/hominid line. Around fourteen million years later, the tree branched again as the chimpanzee-bonobo lineage and our own forked in different directions. If we compare our social behavior with that of our nearest relatives, the chimps and bonobos, we find some interesting similarities. All three species compete for status, and tend to dominate and submit to dominance to form coalitions in the pursuit of power. All three also experience social conflict, which they appear to find distressing, and have methods for deliberate conflict resolution. The fact that the social behavior of chimps, bonobos, and modern humans share these common denominators suggests that these were characteristics of our common ancestor. Extrapolating forward, it is a safe bet that our hominid ancestors also possessed them.
There is a way to push this analysis even further: we can use the present to draw conclusions about the past. If our remote ancestors, the earliest anatomically modern humans, lived as nomadic foragers, it is reasonable to think that their way of life had a lot in common with nomadic hunter-gatherers still around today. Although scattered all over the globe, and in many ways very different from one another, these groups have some striking similarities in their social organization. Nomadic hunter-gatherers tend to be moralistic and have very similar concepts of deviant behavior, including rape, theft, murder, deception, and the failure to cooperate. All use gossip to circulate information about transgressors, and have methods for identifying and punishing deviants, such as shunning ostracism, ridicule, desertion, and in extreme cases, execution. Relations between adult males, and sometimes females, are highly egalitarian. Nomadic hunter-gatherers disapprove of and have found ways to suppress efforts by individuals to dominate and control others and therefore tolerate only minimal levels of leadership. They regard dominance as antisocial, with the whole group opposing anyone who tries to be a "big shot." Treating dominance as a kind of deviance sharply distinguishes the political life of mobile foragers from the social order of the chimps and bonobos.
It would be a grave mistake to draw the sentimental conclusion that these people are "noble savages," innocent of any thirst for power. In fact, warfare and homicide are quite common among them. Wandering hunter-gatherers have not transcended the urge for power: they found an efficient way to police it. This is counterdomination: domination by the majority of group members rather than by one individual or a small clique. All of this changed when our ancestors traded in foraging for a sedentary lifestyle. Societies became much larger as well as much more organized and stratified, and the accumulation of wealth and, in particular, the establishment of standing armies supported by wealthy rulers, sealed rigid dominance hierarchies and established extremes of political inequality. Ironically, AS SOCIAL ORGANIZATION ADVANCED IN COMPLEXITY, WE GAVE FREER REIN TO THE DESPOTIC, CHIMPANZEE-LIKE SIDE OF OUR NATURE.
(Why We Lie)
READ THE WHITE WRITING IN PARTICULAR. ONCE HUMANS TRANSITIONED FROM HUNTER-GATHERER BASED SOCIETIES TO CHIEFDOMS AND STATES (HORTICULTURAL AND AGRICULTURAL BASED SOCIETIES, RESPECTIVELY) SOCIETY BECAME STRATIFIED, WEALTH AND POWER BECAME CONCENTRATED IN A FEW HANDS, AND THOSE MALES WITH THIS WEALTH AND POWER COULD CREATE HAREMS AND TREAT FEMALES LIKE PROPERTY (OBJECTIFY THEM). IN OTHER WORDS, OUR SOCIETIES BECAME MORE LIKE CHIMPANZEE SOCIETY WHERE ONE DOMINANT MALE OR MULTIPLE DOMINANT MALES REIGN, THUS ENABLING OUR MORE CHIMPANZEE PSYCHOLOGICAL AND BEHAVIORAL TRAITS TO REAPPEAR (COME TO THE FORE). HENCE, YOU SEE THE CUM SHOT ON THE FACE OF HUMAN FEMALES TO DEMARCATE MALE PROPERTY! MAKE SENSE? YOU BET IT DOES, MUCHACHO!
There is a way to push this analysis even further: we can use the present to draw conclusions about the past. If our remote ancestors, the earliest anatomically modern humans, lived as nomadic foragers, it is reasonable to think that their way of life had a lot in common with nomadic hunter-gatherers still around today. Although scattered all over the globe, and in many ways very different from one another, these groups have some striking similarities in their social organization. Nomadic hunter-gatherers tend to be moralistic and have very similar concepts of deviant behavior, including rape, theft, murder, deception, and the failure to cooperate. All use gossip to circulate information about transgressors, and have methods for identifying and punishing deviants, such as shunning ostracism, ridicule, desertion, and in extreme cases, execution. Relations between adult males, and sometimes females, are highly egalitarian. Nomadic hunter-gatherers disapprove of and have found ways to suppress efforts by individuals to dominate and control others and therefore tolerate only minimal levels of leadership. They regard dominance as antisocial, with the whole group opposing anyone who tries to be a "big shot." Treating dominance as a kind of deviance sharply distinguishes the political life of mobile foragers from the social order of the chimps and bonobos.
It would be a grave mistake to draw the sentimental conclusion that these people are "noble savages," innocent of any thirst for power. In fact, warfare and homicide are quite common among them. Wandering hunter-gatherers have not transcended the urge for power: they found an efficient way to police it. This is counterdomination: domination by the majority of group members rather than by one individual or a small clique. All of this changed when our ancestors traded in foraging for a sedentary lifestyle. Societies became much larger as well as much more organized and stratified, and the accumulation of wealth and, in particular, the establishment of standing armies supported by wealthy rulers, sealed rigid dominance hierarchies and established extremes of political inequality. Ironically, AS SOCIAL ORGANIZATION ADVANCED IN COMPLEXITY, WE GAVE FREER REIN TO THE DESPOTIC, CHIMPANZEE-LIKE SIDE OF OUR NATURE.
(Why We Lie)
READ THE WHITE WRITING IN PARTICULAR. ONCE HUMANS TRANSITIONED FROM HUNTER-GATHERER BASED SOCIETIES TO CHIEFDOMS AND STATES (HORTICULTURAL AND AGRICULTURAL BASED SOCIETIES, RESPECTIVELY) SOCIETY BECAME STRATIFIED, WEALTH AND POWER BECAME CONCENTRATED IN A FEW HANDS, AND THOSE MALES WITH THIS WEALTH AND POWER COULD CREATE HAREMS AND TREAT FEMALES LIKE PROPERTY (OBJECTIFY THEM). IN OTHER WORDS, OUR SOCIETIES BECAME MORE LIKE CHIMPANZEE SOCIETY WHERE ONE DOMINANT MALE OR MULTIPLE DOMINANT MALES REIGN, THUS ENABLING OUR MORE CHIMPANZEE PSYCHOLOGICAL AND BEHAVIORAL TRAITS TO REAPPEAR (COME TO THE FORE). HENCE, YOU SEE THE CUM SHOT ON THE FACE OF HUMAN FEMALES TO DEMARCATE MALE PROPERTY! MAKE SENSE? YOU BET IT DOES, MUCHACHO!
*OBJECTION YOUR HONOR!
"I Done Fuck Alotta Nigga Wife!" - Ene A Migos
(I've Got A Passage From The Chemistry Between Us That'll Explain Why This Is So Common.)
"So Get Back For Me [Revenge For Nipsey] Is Like Fuckin' His Wife!" -Nip (And Nip Eventually Lost His Life Foe Fuccin' Anotha Nigga's Wife!)
"I'm Fuckin' On YO Baby MaMa! Bangin' YO Boo!" - Newport Harbor
The Producer
Ill fuck a nigga bitch just to say I did it,then tellem straight to his face nigga fuck yo feelings
MOST NIGGERS THINK AND ACT THIS WAY. AT LEAST HE HAD THE COURAGE TO SAY THAT HE DOES. AT LEAST HE HAD THE COURAGE TO SAY THAT HE WAS A REAL NIGGER JUST LIKE THE REST OF THEM. AT LEAST HE HAD THE COURAGE TO PUT HIS TRUE FEELINGS AND MORALITY OUT THERE IN SPITE OF THE NEGATIVE REPERCUSSIONS HE MAY ENDURE. A LOT OF RAPPERS SAY THIS IN THEIR SONGS BUT MOST PEOPLE DON'T TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY BECAUSE THEY THINK IT'S AN ACT OR JUST A PART OF THEIR PERSONA OR THEY FIGURE "HE'S A RAPPER, HE'S SUPPOSED TO DO THAT. THAT'S PART OF HIS JOB. HE'S PAID TO TRY TO SEDUCE AND FUCK AS MANY MARRIED WOMEN AS HE CAN AND THEN RAP ABOUT THEM." SO IT GOES IN ONE EAR AND OUT THE OTHER. BUT WHEN COMMON, EVERY DAY NIGGERS SAY/WRITE THAT, IT CARRIES A LITTLE MORE WEIGHT. IT'S TAKEN A LITTLE MORE SERIOUSLY, BECAUSE PEOPLE START THINKING "SHIT, THIS MIGHT BE REFLECTIVE OF THEIR CULTURE AND GENES. IF THE COMMON NIGGER IS DOING THIS THEN THEY ALL MUST BE DOING IT." ANYHOW, CHIMPANZEES BEHAVE THIS WAY (THEY TRY TO CUCKOLD ONE ANOTHER), JUST AS OUR HOMINID ANCESTORS DID. SO, HE'S JUST FURTHER PROVING MY POINT THAT THE NIGGER IS PSYCHOLOGICALLY AND BEHAVIORALLY CLOSER TO OUR APE COUSINS AND HOMINID ANCESTORS THAN ANY OTHER RACE. (THANK YOU, NIGGER. Thank You, YungxcBeatz For Helping ME Prove My Point.)
EastSide D
Niggas love fucking bitches that have a boyfriend
THEY DUE
WOOP WOOP!
WOOP WOOP!
Imma Fucc YO Bitch...Imma Fucc YO Bitch...Fucc YO Bitch...Fucc YO...Fucc YO Bitch...Imma Fucc YO Bitch...Fucc YO Bitch...Fucc YO...Fucc YO Bitch...Imma Run This Dicc Up In YO Bitch...And Fucc YO...Fucc YO Bitch...Imma Run This Dicc Up In YO Bitch...And Fucc YO...And Fucc YO Biiiiitch NiggggggA!
(That's Just How It Izzz!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB5vvSdJy9Y
And More Proof. ("Yeah, I Fucced YO Bitch Nigga!" - Lil Bricc W/S Hoova Crip!) More Proof That Niggers Try To Lure Mates From Other Niggers And Fuck Them. Like Chimpanzees, Niggers Have Very Little Conscience And Morality.
And More Proof. ("Yeah, I Fucced YO Bitch Nigga!" - Lil Bricc W/S Hoova Crip!) More Proof That Niggers Try To Lure Mates From Other Niggers And Fuck Them. Like Chimpanzees, Niggers Have Very Little Conscience And Morality.
I DON'T ENGAGE IN ADULTERY, NOR DO I TRY TO STEAL GUYS WIVES OR GIRLFRIENDS FROM THEM. THAT'S WHAT THE LOWER CLASSES DO, ESPECIALLY THE BLACK AND BROWN LOWER CLASSES!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1y7iJfmlVM
"I'll Fucc YO Citch And Shoot You In The MothaFuccin' Face Nigga! (I'll Shoot You In YO Face! And Please Don't Play I'll Shoot You In YO Face And Slide Off In A Race!)"
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeOQNHXobpQ
1:49 "NOW THAT'S MY BITCH AND ACCOMPANYING VAGINA...WANT ME TO NAME YOUR NAME CARRUTH..." (OR WHATEVER THE FUCC THIS STRIPPER NIGGER SAYS).
NOW, WANT ME TO TELL YOU WHY HE SAYS THIS? WHY THE STRIPPER NIGGER CALLS HIS V.C. GIRL A "BITCH" AND THEN ACTUALLY STATES HER NAME? HE SAYS THIS BECAUSE FEMALES ARE STATUS SYMBOLS. HE SAYS THIS BECAUSE FEMALES ARE CONSIDERED PROPERTY IN NIGGER CULTURE AND ARE THUS PRIZED POSSESSIONS THAT NIGGERS CAN BRAG ABOUT AND THIS IS CRITICAL IN NIGGER CULTURE. IT'S CRITICAL BECAUSE DOING SO (CLAIMING A GIRL, ESPECIALLY A HIGHER STATUS GIRL, AS HIS "BITCH") AND BRAGGING ABOUT FUCKING HER BOOSTS A NIGGER'S STATUS. IT LETS OTHER NIGGERS KNOW THAT HE'S A HIGH STATUS, RICH NIGGER WHO HAS ENOUGH POWER AND WEALTH TO ATTRACT, FUCK, AND IMPREGNATE HIGH QUALITY , HIGH STATUS FEMALES. NOW ALL THE STRIPPER NIGGER NEEDS TO DO IS HAVE HER (HIS V.C. "BITCH") TATTOO HIS NAME ("THE GAME") ON HER FACE, PREFERABLY ON HER FOEHEAD!. THEN HE'LL REALLY SHOW NIGGERS THAT THAT'S HIS "BITCH"!
"IF U LUV ME TAT MY NAME ON YOUR UTERUS!" - John Chainey (Smoker)
The Game, Have Your V.C. "Bitch" Tattoo Your Name "The Game" On Her FoeHead. Then Have Her Tattoo "Bitch" On Both Ass Cheeks Or Just "Bitch" Above Her Ass Near Her Coccyx! Or Go For The Trifecta. Have The V.C. Tattoo 1"Bitch" On One Ass Cheek, 1 "Bitch" On Another Ass Cheek And The 3rd "Bitch" On The Coccyx! This Will Really Let Niggers Know That She (Carruth) Is Property Of The Game! That Ass And FoeHead Is Waitin' Foe It, The Game!
And The Nigger Bitches Become ENVIOUS When They See Another Nigger Bitch Witta Tattoo (Either The Name Or Picture) Of A High Status, Relatively Wealthy Nigger Male! The Nigger Bitches Get Works'd Up Like, "Bitch, I Want Me Onna Them Tattoo. Bitch I Deserve Me Onna Them [Nipsey Or What Have You] Tattoo!"
"YOU GOT MY NAME TATTED ON YOUR BODY...THEY DON'T KNOW YOU BELONG TO ME..." - LOVE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1y7iJfmlVM
"I'll Fucc YO Citch And Shoot You In The MothaFuccin' Face Nigga! (I'll Shoot You In YO Face! And Please Don't Play I'll Shoot You In YO Face And Slide Off In A Race!)"
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeOQNHXobpQ
1:49 "NOW THAT'S MY BITCH AND ACCOMPANYING VAGINA...WANT ME TO NAME YOUR NAME CARRUTH..." (OR WHATEVER THE FUCC THIS STRIPPER NIGGER SAYS).
NOW, WANT ME TO TELL YOU WHY HE SAYS THIS? WHY THE STRIPPER NIGGER CALLS HIS V.C. GIRL A "BITCH" AND THEN ACTUALLY STATES HER NAME? HE SAYS THIS BECAUSE FEMALES ARE STATUS SYMBOLS. HE SAYS THIS BECAUSE FEMALES ARE CONSIDERED PROPERTY IN NIGGER CULTURE AND ARE THUS PRIZED POSSESSIONS THAT NIGGERS CAN BRAG ABOUT AND THIS IS CRITICAL IN NIGGER CULTURE. IT'S CRITICAL BECAUSE DOING SO (CLAIMING A GIRL, ESPECIALLY A HIGHER STATUS GIRL, AS HIS "BITCH") AND BRAGGING ABOUT FUCKING HER BOOSTS A NIGGER'S STATUS. IT LETS OTHER NIGGERS KNOW THAT HE'S A HIGH STATUS, RICH NIGGER WHO HAS ENOUGH POWER AND WEALTH TO ATTRACT, FUCK, AND IMPREGNATE HIGH QUALITY , HIGH STATUS FEMALES. NOW ALL THE STRIPPER NIGGER NEEDS TO DO IS HAVE HER (HIS V.C. "BITCH") TATTOO HIS NAME ("THE GAME") ON HER FACE, PREFERABLY ON HER FOEHEAD!. THEN HE'LL REALLY SHOW NIGGERS THAT THAT'S HIS "BITCH"!
"IF U LUV ME TAT MY NAME ON YOUR UTERUS!" - John Chainey (Smoker)
The Game, Have Your V.C. "Bitch" Tattoo Your Name "The Game" On Her FoeHead. Then Have Her Tattoo "Bitch" On Both Ass Cheeks Or Just "Bitch" Above Her Ass Near Her Coccyx! Or Go For The Trifecta. Have The V.C. Tattoo 1"Bitch" On One Ass Cheek, 1 "Bitch" On Another Ass Cheek And The 3rd "Bitch" On The Coccyx! This Will Really Let Niggers Know That She (Carruth) Is Property Of The Game! That Ass And FoeHead Is Waitin' Foe It, The Game!
He did say “nipsey on they titties, more game than ESPN”
Dawg. Nipsey’s other bm has “Nipsey’s Bitch” tatted on her titties....
“Tattoo all my lady friends, nipsey on they titties” - “keys 2 the city”
"YOU GOT MY NAME TATTED ON YOUR BODY...THEY DON'T KNOW YOU BELONG TO ME..." - LOVE
No comments:
Post a Comment