Deliberate Consent Violation

It going to be a lonely fight. But I’m sure you’re ok with that.
Me, I just ain’t interested in the no means yes gig, or any of that. If that’s all you have to write about. That’s cool too but to me it’s getting old.

I’ll plant a tree and hang an Ecmanu tag on it.

Non contradiction is the least lonely road that exists.

Everyone moves towards it. They have no choice in the matter.

You don’t have responsibilities yes in your mind, but you do.

Non contradiction is relentless!!!

There’s so much you don’t understand about spirit.

It’s fine, because I’m picking up the slack

That’s your choice, and you can consider it an inevitable if you wish.

As much slack as you believe required. I’ll pick up your slack on the environmental front.

The origins of sexual reproduction date back 1.2 billion years. Many protists reproduce sexually, as do the multicellular plants, animals, and fungi. In the eukaryotic fossil record, sexual reproduction first appeared by 1.2 billion years ago in the Proterozoic Eon. Sexual dimorphism by size is evident in some extinct species such as the velociraptor and dates to 71 million years ago. Way before humans showed up. You going to blame humans for an evolutionary adaptation that took place millions of years before humans walked the planet? Something that has been apart of their DNA from the get go? That’s like blaming humans for the extinction of dinosaurs.

Entomology of the word consent,
etymonline.com/word/consent

Old Latin is as far back as I’ve been able to trace the origin of the idea of consent. Old Latin in use from 509 BC to 75 BC.
Human’s had been subject to sexual dimporphism for 27,000 years before the idea of consent entered the lexicon.
Around 1–4% of the genomes of all native populations outside Africa (in Eurasia, Oceania, and the Americas) derives from Neanderthals dating back 40,000 years, and about 20% of the Neanderthal genome survives today.

Seems like you’re blaming the entire modern species for something that evolved as long ago as 40,000 years. That’s harsh.

And even if we can overcome our biological imperatives how long is that going to take?

Do we have a couple thousand years? Or is our treatment of the planet itself going to close the window a 1000 years short of the goal.

Oh, it’s not even that mowk!

The modern understanding of consent is only several decades old !!

I’m actually not that frustrated with humans (I am still frustrated with them!)

Like I stated before, I’m angry at the deities. They very rarely come in human form (I’m not counting possessions here, which are not the persons fault at all). I’m counting literal self embodiments.

When I meet with these sorts of beings, I judge them harshly, not for not knowing what I know… that’s absurd! But for knowing it after I taught it and not changing. Humans! I’m easy on!

These deities who prop themselves as perfect for thousands of years… I’m hard as fuck on, and they deserve it!

Back to deities again, I thought you were an atheist not a deist.

There are beings more powerful than humans.

It’s that simple.

You may have never met one. I’ve met lots of them.

When you were alone.

We are never alone. Within us is a genetic-psychic plenum that has eternally preceded us, and will so in the eternity that succeeds us.

Like I said. Keep guessing.

I have shaken the hands of beings like this. They aren’t flesh and blood, at least not all of them.

They have a joke about us humans “they think with their meat”

I’ve met all kinds of beings over the years.

ET’s, gods, you name it. Shapeshifters, 5th dimensional beings.

I’ve lived quite the storied life. I’m not even scratching the surface of it.

These beings are not just in MY head. Many people know them … they just decided to reveal themselves to me.

So they aren’t just in your head, but they could be, in your subjective experience alone.

Many people know them, and they likely find themselves in a position similar to yours.

Similarly subjective. While epigenetics as heritable phenotype changes is a postulate, whether memory specific psychic characteristics are passed is speculation. And given the nature of the DNA genome on the planet that they preceded us eternally and will do so, into successive eternity is also speculation.

Mowk, you really don’t understand …

Watch the movie “the day the earth stood still” with Keanu Reaves.

That’s freightenly accurate!

So, let me explain a little bit about this…

A being, who I won’t name, bowed to me and stated, “the crown wears heavy sir”

I was made the ruler of the earth on that day.

When gods and ets have political questions they need to ask, they come to me (not Donald trump!)

You have to understand, reality is divided into reality proper, dream worlds and virtual worlds. They coexist on earth.

Now, being the anointed king, I know all this shit inside and out.

You know who made me the king?

The earth itself… Gaia

I had an uncle diagnosed with schizophrenia, he no longer consented to taking medication, he was found floating face down in Catfish Creek with rat poison in his stomach.

Don’t let that happen to you or anything like it. I’m not helping you, so I am sorry but this will be the last time I write to you. Get some help. He was an uncle I looked up to, shit you just bring up terrible memories, I thought I could handle them, but I miss him. He was super cool.

Good luck Jason and keep your head on straight, I feel for ya.

No don’t do that! Don’t go near him, don’t feel for him, don’t even think about him. This is all a trick to draw you closer. This man is like an evil jack kavorkian. Ever seen one of his videos… those lifeless eyes, the catatonic motionlessness. This man is death incarnate in a blue ski coat.

can you feel the cold? he’s devouring the heat, the energy…

Man, Prom you can be the most…

Promethean,

Let’s look at what I really do and who I really am.

I hate zero sum realities. This is not a trick. I really want 7.5 billion people to join me in spirit to make hyperdimensional mirror realities. YESTERDAY!!!

Death is the zero sum nature of reality, the victor, and thus the loser.

If you think I want friends that others don’t have, you don’t understand me at all. I don’t like zero sum realities.

The older you get, the more you’ll be for me.

That’s the honest truth.

You’re posturing with your posts promethean, but I already know that you agree with me.

I’m a pioneer in the spirit world. This takes a lot of courage. A lot of the spirit world are a bunch of sociopathic trolls, they’d rather see me possessed to chop my own dick off, than care about non zero sum.
They’re in it for the show, and the show is zero sum consent violating.

I risk my life everyday to do what I do, can the same be said of you?

Where exactly promethean, is your nobility… I haven’t seen it yet

The first result when searching the study you cite for the word “tall” quotes a study by Holden & Mace dated 1999, saying “Cross-culturally, men are on average taller than women”.
I’m sure there’s caveats, but honestly it’s just something I’ve heard oft repeated by both professional scientists and intellects who cite them, so I’m not claiming first-hand academic expertise on this matter.

So I am willing to concede that the degree of preference for taller men need not necessarily be the same cross-culturally - it makes perfect sense that societies that lack the resources to reliably physiologically support male tallness will not be selecting for tall males. Likewise it makes perfect sense that rich societies that can support tallness in men allows for their selection. This indicates to me that male tallness is preferred whenever it can be, and only not preferred when it can’t be - though this could probably be easily turned around. This fits with the ecological prinicple that competition in poor environments can only converge to a diverse equality, but rich environments enable the winning of competitions to further enable subsequent winning - divergently. So the richer the environment, the more sexual dimorphism - until competition becomes so saturated that resources are depleted to relative poverty and equilibrium, in which case sexual dimorphism will likely decrease.

I would say that the physiological predisposition of males towards r-strategy doesn’t necessarily imply their practice of it, as they are only half of the equation. The desire to be promiscuous doesn’t mean the ability to get away with it. The more sexual dimorphism, the more males can physcially force the balance in their favour e.g. in tournament species, but whilst there is cross-cultural sexual dimorphism in humans (at least insofar as cultures are rich), humans aren’t nearly as much of a tournament species as other species, but they’re not neatly pair-bonding either. I’ve heard it suggested that humans more accurately practice serial monogamy, which is still much more consistent with k-strategy than r-strategy. Also, whilst k-strategy is compatible with pair-bonding, r-species are not well tied tournament species. R-species are usually small and opportunistic, where tournament species are usually large and their societies structured. Humans are fairly large and definitely structured, though their tournaments are more “civilised” with physicality mostly only implied rather than enacted - for which tallness helps even as just a suggestion of physical dominance. It’s not a coincidence that those in positions of power are more often taller, even if in some more exceptional cases they can be short.

Yes of course, which is why promiscuity isn’t necessarily r-strategy - especially after the advent of effective contraception and “free love”. Promiscuity is more like a sublimated expression of desire for r-strategy without it being actualised. Being tall helps you to this end, even if it utlimately concludes with a pair-bonding relationship - most likely more than one in succession. This only contributes to selection for tallness, but as you point out, moreso in richer societies.

It wouldn’t be a trick if it was obvious. There is a kind of unconscious war selecting for both trickery and detection of trickery, which is perpetually unresolved and in flux. One sex selects for some new form of trickery that works, the other in turn selects for those who can detect it and act in such a way as to tip favour back to their own tricks. I agree that it’s not conscious, but that’s the whole point - you don’t tend to get away with tricks that everyone’s conscious of.

I would say that monogamy, or at least serial monogamy, is only optimal insofar as it is contingent on our current state in our evolution within our current environment. If environments all got a lot poorer we’d presumably tend back more towards monogamous pair-bonding with lower sexual dimorphism, and perhaps if they got even richer there’d be more sexual dimorphism selected for, and in turn more male dominance over groups of females, with the consequence of larger numbers of offspring only for successful males and less fathering required as environments would be so rich as to not require it.

I would also say that women being evolutionarily hurt by their male descendants being hurt is exactly why they are picky about their mates. With better mates who do better in life, the better the offspring do in life - and the stats seem to be that tall males do better in life, at least in richer environments that can support their height.

If I’m reading you right, you’re concerned about your position on globalised monoculture on monogamy, but not on tallness? I’m not certain what you mean about checking your math, but I don’t agree that pair-bonding is stable and neutral. Tournament species maintain structure even without pair-bonding, and they’re just as susceptible to changes in environment as pair-bonders. The females want the best male genes, and the dominant male wants the most females, so all get this wish even with unequal numbers of males and females, except the males who cannot win the dominance battle - and in their failure they lack the ability to destablise. R-strategy is less stable, but that doesn’t prevent at least a desire to act upon it moreso in males than females - and the less physiologically costly it is for the female the more neutral it is, but it’s still more in favour of the male as long as it physiologically costs them less than the female.

Units of selection are great for specificity and falsificationism etc. but they aren’t the maker or breaker of evolutionary theory. Very often there’s evolutionary behaviours that don’t boil down to specific genes, and it’s highly limiting to disregard them on these grounds.