As I recall, current theories suggest that there has been run away sexual selection on both male genital size and female breast size in Homo sapiens. Male penises are way bigger than necessary to effectively impregnate females, and while bipedalism would entail some size and shape changes in sexual organs, human male genitals are 2-4 times bigger than our closest ape relatives (Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas). Run away sexual selection happens when a trait is selected for by the opposite sex, not because of some advantage the trait offers the individual to survive in the environment but because they just like it, or the trait sends some sort of signal about the quality of the individual with the trait, but the actual signal becomes disconnected from the advantage/quality. Peacock tails are a classic example of run away sexual selection, initially they might have signaled that a male was so adept at escaping predators that he could afford the burden of an extra-large tail, but they've become so big that they create a disadvantage for the males yet they still grow them because the females just love them. It is quite a common phenomenon in the natural world (especially in birds). So, it is quite possible and even probable that as humans evolved bipedalism, theircockspenises became more noticeable to females, and females, for some reason, chose to mate more often with males with largercockspenises. There must be some simultaneous downward size selection though (e.g., vagina size), because we don't all have 4 foot dicks. I would argue that sexual selection is a form of a "social construct" because it creates selective advantages for specific traits that have little or nothing to do with biology/ecology, and mostly to do with visual/auditory/some other sensory preference
[I'm really looking forward to all the Tapa ads I am going to get from this post]
Yep.
Some people prefer to be lied to. It’s a trip, man
Does Angus realize how easily he was manipulated?
It's really the JH's and Junebugs who were arguably manipulated They're the ones who pretend to take the high road sometimes and think they're intelligent, but damn are they easily manipulated (or more likely they don't give a shit either way because they're big racists).
oh the horror.
just what are you afraid of brad?
As usual, Rufo focuses on those things that seem to prove his point, but conveniently leaves out other parts that don't support it, or he emphasizes CRT out of context. Note the part that he says includes "Critical Race Theory", but he leaves out that CRT is only a part of a proposed curriculum that also includes "American History, African History, American Enslavement, Black/African American-led social movement, Black/African American social autonomy and economic development, Black/African American innovation, and Black/African American leadership nationally and globally." God forbid that kids in an urban, diverse school system learn about African History and black economic development and innovation!
And that last sentence doesn't say anything about CRT, it simply states that the school district is working to implement "a liberatory curriculum for Grades K-5 that embeds Black Studies across all subjects." Imagine the horror of having kids learn about Black Studies in school - no wonder guys like Rufo and Angus are so frightened. And in the meantime, we've got a "Moms for Liberty" parent group that wants to take books about MLK's March on Washington and Ruby Bridges out of school. Rubes (and bigots) indeed.
Lulz - It's heartwarming to see the Tunnels finally move to the acceptance stage from "CRT doesn't even exist... IT"S A CONSERVATIVE BOOGEYMAN" to:
"It does exist but it's not taught in K-12" to
"It's only taught in a few K-12 schools" to
"So what if it's taught in K-12... what's the problem??"