50k Year Old Girl Found to be 1/2 Neaderthal and 1/2 Denisovan

maybe schwarzenegger and those slavers and rich men do not or did not really have to care about these women or if they got pregnant. but i think when it comes to the point where they actually have to decide between what women they really want to spend their resources on,maybe even kill or die for, or if they even want to spend any resources at all, then physical attraction will play a more and more important role. sure if you do not have to spend resources then you will often just do it that is especially true for men. maybe also if you have no other choice.
but if this wasn't the case humans, women and men, would not have sexual preferences.
"They weren't all rushing to sightsee in museums and churches. Nowadays men can go on sex tours of Cambodia and Thailand. Why?"
there are probably multiple reasons. people who can't succeed in their home country and just want to have sex and feel valued go there. in some poor countries this is almost exploitation and most of the time those destinations for sex tourism are indeed poor because this makes everything easier for those tourists. there are documentaries and articles about it and you often see that the men and women who do this have a few more pounds or are older. why do you think there are so many old men who go to thailand? then there is the explanation that holiday affairs are far away from home so a possible partner won't know about you cheating. or maybe there are also people who just think thai women are more attractive. but how many people are actually doing this compared to the people who are not doing it?
 
Last edited:
I think you're missing the obvious point that for most of recorded human history people really didn't have much choice when it came to mating. Until very recently in western Europe and I would bet in eastern Europe as well, if your family had any property whatsoever you married whom you were told to marry, where it would do the most good for your family. Nobody cared about your personal inclinations and whom you found attractive.

Haven't you read Romeo and Juliet? That's only one example. A prime stock character in much of European comedy is the elderly, disgustingly lecherous rich old man married to a pretty teen age girl. You think she found him attractive? Chaucer is full of stories like that.

As for the serfs, their choices were limited to the people on their lord's estate, and they had to get his permission to marry. In some benighted places the lord had the droit de seigneur and could sleep with any young girl he chose on her wedding night. You think anyone asked her if she was in agreement?

Forty years ago, one of my distant cousins was told by her parents she couldn't marry the young man of her choice for absurd reasons. She almost had what used to be called a nervous breakdown before they relented. They didn't relent with her brother. He was married to a distant cousin, a very plain widow almost eight years older than he was in order to consolidate family holdings.

The problem with a lot of analysis that is done on topics like this is that young people, in particular, who don't have a very good grasp of the history of even a half century to a century ago, create these theories which never applied to life as it was actually lived, and is barely even a reflection of what goes on nowadays.

If I belonged to a women's liberation group, which I don't and never have, they would kick me out for this, but it's my opinion that on average, and even today, men are different in terms of sexuality than women, especially once a woman has married and had children. A lot of men would happily and do have affairs even with women who aren't particularly attractive, whom they might not even like, and certainly don't love, and all while I think sincerely loving their wives some of them, merely because they like the hunt, they like variety, because it validates their sense of themselves as men and as powerful human beings. I don't like it, but that's the way it is, imo.

Moralists, racists, whoever, can rail against it all they like, but it's the way it is.
 
I'm going to remove these posts, both yours and mine on this topic, and create a separate thread for them, as they're completely off topic.
 
Good point. I've often doubted Neanderthals and Denisovans would've split from each other as late as ~430,000 kya. I mean, even some 100% modern human populations, like the least admixed Khoisan, diverged from other parts of humankind ~200,000 kya - and still they are virtually identical to other Homo sapiens sapiens. Neanderthals and Denisovans would've been more similar to each if they had diverged only ~300-350k years before the genetic samples that have been analyzed.

Rogers, Bohlender and Huff used an expanded dataset in their paper "Early history of Neanderthals and Denisovans" in 2017, and found a divergence time of 620 - 744 kyears ago. 26 000 generations. Available on PNAS. This seems more intuitive to me, especially given the difficulties we seem to have had in breeding with Neanderthals. It would roughly coincide the apperance of the people who would develop into Neanderthals and Denisovans with the middle Acheulian tool set rather than the Mousterian.
 

This thread has been viewed 13963 times.

Back
Top