Sexual submissiveness

> It means nothing that a molecule appeared earlier than another one. I mean, it is a cool fact though.

Oh i dunno, perhaps it might imply that in the absence of testosterone, human beings were still unsubmissive, since at that time testosterone was not a molecule yet?

Dude... no. The research is studying 450 million year old DNA.

MAMMALS APPEARED 220 MILLION YEARS AGO.

BACK THEN THERE WERE NO HUMANS NIGGA

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOOOOOOOOOUT?

I shot too early, but what i mean to say is that despite the lack of testosteroene, living beings still reproduced with the base of hormones being estrogen, and since an animal has to display assertiveness at some point in its life, you cannot just simply classify estrogen as the "submission hormone"

>you cannot just simply classify estrogen as the "submission hormone"
Yes I can, in the correct context. Estrogen could be the submission hormone for humans.

For other animals it may not be. After all, a body only reacts to a hormone in the way that the body is structurally programmed to react to it. Not all beings react the same way to the same chemical.

>A big butt is not a feminine trait. Neither are big lips.
Yes they are.
>but women also like big butts and nice lips on men.
No they don't. These traits are either repulsive or neutral for women.

here's one source for T: i1.wp.com/www.airlats.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/TestEthnicity.png

Asians and blacks have higher T than whites. Blacks > whites > Asians for E levels. I have seen enough studies on this to know it byheart.

you never specifically mentioned the human context, just "estrogen is the submission hormone"

plus are you not aware of what "bears" are? would you consider them feminine if they could bench 400 pounds?

>No they don't. These traits are either repulsive or neutral for women.

Dude, you know. It is not like I care. But go read a women's magazine. I know, it is stupid and it is retarded but women are how women are. They talk about men with big firm butts.

Here: mtv.com/news/2082976/women-like-guys-butts-science/

It is a women's magazine. It is dumb but at least we can trust it being accurate about what women like.

This thread is about humans... Please take your furry shit into the

are muscular gay men not humans?

What are you even talking about? Also, there obviously are high T homosexuals. Everyone knows that.

and some of them are, submissive, a result contrary to your absolute claim that estrogen is the "submissive" hormone

That guy is me, lol. I'm the OP who made that comment.

The paradigm I was getting at was that BECAUSE estrogen is such a primitive ancient hormone, it has "lower" functioning than testosterone and progesterone.

if we associate estrogen with the female traits (big butts, small waists, sexual submission), then estrogen seems lower functioning---big butts/hips are a benefit because of energy demands of the baby. In an environment with high energy availability, this trait is less and less necessary, similar to how obesity is less necessary in modern society.

Sexual submission, while of course fine for the woman, is a lower functioning and passive sexuality. Submissiveness is degenerate for the man; it reduces his fitness, while dominance is not necessarily degenerate for the woman because it won't reduce her fitness.

Likewise, testosterone is directly linked to muscle growth and lower fat reserves. Both of these are energetically expensive, and thus progressive. Muscles require more energy just to exist. Lower fat means that the organism is not worried about famine. The dominant sexuality is also obviously more energetically expensive than a submissive one.

I think it's largely based on experiences during your childhood my parent's used to spank me when I was little and now my girlfriend does

lower functioning goes beyond just physical traits, and can involve vital parts of a human bodys processes to keep running. And excess of estrogen maybe, but not estrogen itself.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estrogen#Overview_of_actions

this is so fucking stupid. first off, none of those guys even have big butts. secondly, women don't even fucking care about this. When has a woman ever been drawn to a guy because of his butt?

There's a reason the only thing you could find was a niche article in a magazine without any comments on it.

T =/= E, lmfao. Also there are differences in sensitivities based on baseline levels.

Women have really low baseline T, so even a small increase in T is enough to masculinize them. I'd imagine something similar could happen in males with E.

imagine being black, what a fucking curse.

Mate

...

what a funny meme, user.

imagine being an american, kek.

kek that would be pretty sad as aromatase is probably quite common in males (reason why white dudes with thick necks have bigger lips)

I'd also like to know what makes men want to be submissive and feminine, and how it can be prevented
All to help out a friend of course

Better than be an American Indian or Aboriginal Australian. At least blacks have the opportunity to participate in the society.

Nothing to prevent, stop being memed

Men aren't supposed to be submissive and girly; I hate it.

>Nothing to prevent

being healthy and normal is a "meme" now.

Only in hentai do the men in femdom look feminine. In actual femdom porn, they look repulsively masculine.

Vegan men have been shown to have higher test levels among other benefits, so changing what you eat is something to consider:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2374537/pdf/83-6691152a.pdf
>Meat-eaters / Vegetarians / Vegans
>T (nmol/l)
>Unadjusted for BMI: 19.3 (18.3–20.3) / 20.5 (19.6–21.4) / 22.3 (21.3–23.4)
>Adjusted for BMI: 20.3 (19.3–21.3) / 20.1 (19.2–21.0) / 21.7 (20.7–22.7)
Even adjusted for BMI vegans had higher test. They were healthier BMI on average, which increases test but even the fat ones had more test than fat meat/dairy eaters.

this.

however, estrogen doesn't mean you have to have girly features. You could somehow have more "brain" estrogen but less estrogen in your body or something like that.

This would mean that your sexuality becomes female, but not your features.

Also consider that testosterone is irreversible; MtF trannies always look like men in drag unless they transition before puberty. This is regardless of their estrogen levels.

it says that it was offset by more SHBG, though they still come up slightly higher in Free T.

What if veganism is just a self selection phenomenon? Like maybe the people who crave meat just don't use protein efficiently or something like that. That would make them crave more protein, and denser sources of it.

I notice that I feel best when I'm not craving meat, but sometimes I just crave meat.

>You could somehow have more "brain" estrogen but less estrogen in your body or something like that.
What?

>I notice that I feel best when I'm not craving meat, but sometimes I just crave meat.
Probably you are craving fats or calories. I tried to go vegan before and didn't really plan what I ate, and eventually went back to eating meat because I was feeling hungry/tired all day. Once I found reliable healthy sources of calories I didn't have any cravings. Cheesecake was the only difficult thing to give up lol. Check out nutritionfacts.org and the YouTube channel if you're interested, it's resources like that which made me switch.

Here's some more studies showing high protein diets reduce testosterone and raise estrogen. Can't find it behind a paywall but here's a vid:
youtube.com/watch?v=kXty_-3o7X8
skip to 3:00 for the part about testosterone

You shouldn't trust nutritionfacts, this guy regularly misrepresents the studies he cites and lies about simple things like the numbers on the graphs.

Can I get some examples of this?

In his video on how vegan/vegitarianism cures cancer.
He shows a graph that is pretty clear about the numbers (with asterisks that he doesn't explain) and then he covers those numbers quickly with an inset and a comparison inset that shows an effect wildly different from the graph.

Pic; Graph shows 80% reduction max, inset shows near total annihilation.

Ah sorry not 80% reduction, A reduction to 80% of the original value.

He has a lot of videos about cancer, can you post the specific one? He's pretty anal about facts, I don't think he would leave that up if he knew it was so grossly wrong. If you can't find it maybe he already deleted it.

And he makes some pretty mundane claims, often repeating himself to the point of being boring. 'Well known carcinogens recognized by the WHO cause cancer' (red meat) and 'Eating more calorie dense foods causes increased calorie consumption leading to weight gain. Decrease the calorie density of your foods to help lose weight.' 'Being fat is unhealthy'

Don't know the video your talking about but he probably didn't even edit it himself, the 10-20% reduction is pretty cool. Unless he claimed something that was completely false I wouldn't rag on him too much for an exaggerated visual effect in his videos probably done by his editor who knows much less about the science.

>Do submissive males simply have more estrogen?
Maybe they have less testosterone.

youtube.com/watch?v=0VX_oZBMSd4

1:20 for the graph 1:49 for the insets.

>he probably didn't even edit it himself
That isn't an excuse for bad ethics in scientific journalism buddy. He also knew what the inset looked like and described the "effects".

well i mean come on man it's not like he drew the pictures of the cells to deceive people. he just used the pictures from the study.

you can see the pics here on the last page.
pritikin.com/eperspective/specialissues/cancer/cancerabstract.pdf

there was 10-20% reduction in cell growth and ~25% increase in aptosis ( programmed cell death ) so i would suppose that is why the picture looks very impressive.

>Excusing bad practices because science is complicated.

what? have a look at the link i posted. he used the pictures from the study. 10-20% reduction in cell growth + 25% increase in apoptosis = 35-45% decrease in cells. that's huge. plus some cells probably died naturally which would explain why it's a near annihilation.

it's very clear the 'low fat high fiber diet combined with exercise' used in the study helped significantly. are you criticizing the study or dr greger?

>Do submissive males simply have more estrogen
anecdotal evidence fag here, have tested super low testosterone and am submissive

If the cells died naturally then the end results for the control would look 35% as good. That's why we use controls and not fucking pre additive and post additive.

Also a reduction to 80% and an 25% increase in negative trends are the same fucking thing.

Left shows blood of women dripped on cancer cells before starting diet/exercise regimen, right shows blood of same women dripped on cancer cells after 1 week of diet and exercise. They acted as their own controls. Just as he said in video.

Normal blood has some capability to fight cancer cells but after diet and exercise they have 10-20% more reduction in cell growth and +25% increase in apoptosis.

The 25% increase in cell death was separate from the 10-20% reduction in cell growth.

>1 week
2 weeks actually, sorry.

So why isn't this 35 to 45% reduction shown properly in the image?

Sub is not girly thats only in your brain. Mistresses are a thing you know?

>Le degeneracy
Back to /pol/

I mean, ur splitting hairs here man. That's just the pictures provided in the study. The results look pretty impressive, go take it up with
>R. James Barnard, Jenny Hong, Maud Liva, Tung H. Ngo, Department of Physiological Science, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095
if it triggers your autism so much.

Perhaps a 35-45% reduction can't be represented correctly by measuring the area of the 2d image as you assume. I don't know.

Those are the images and data we are presented with.

Considering this post is bloated in masculinity insecurity lets check real reasons for sexual submissiveness:

-it makes you feel desired by the dominant part
-because you are a control freak and the thought of losing control causes you so much stress that you need to relieve it like sexual tension
-in girls, because they dont have responsability (im the one getting dominated)
-because you are a little insecure man about your "manhood" like the 90% in this thread and again that causes you too much stress
-etc

I mean submissive 'and' girly

As in: wanting to be dominated and used in bed and having a small weak feminine body compared to a normal "male"

>Perosn X asks a question
>You start nitpicking the reasons why someone might ask this question and oh boy, I bet anyone who asks this question must be a poopyhead!

This is why women can't be scientists lol. Hey, you wanna know the scientific reason for something? I BET YOU ARE INSECURE HAHA LETS NOT RESEARCH THIS PLEASE.

>Im gonna generalize a whole gender, that will sure show how scientific I am

Mmm made me reply 10/10

>Thinking it is just this one woman who thinks like this
Hey, I can't blame you. If I was also a caveman who has not talked to a woman for decades I would think the same. But fortunately I have a couple of pointers.

Just google the controversy behind "MakeApp".

>Oh what? You want to push the boundaries of facial recognition tech and maybe help some charities by pioneering technology that could help identify victims of kidnapping who are then covered in makeup in order to hide their identity from surveillance cameras?
>HAHAHA THIS SAD SAD MAN MUST BE SO FUCKING INSECURE ABOUT EVERYTHING. WHY DOES HE EVEN CARE ABOUT FACIAL RECOGNITION? IS IT BECAUSE HATES WOMEN? I BET IT IS BECAUSE HE IS UGLY HIMSELF HAHAHA

So that would be like thousands and maybe millions of women who share this sentiment.

The big difference here is that insecurities can cause fetishes so they are related and relevant in the discussion

I don't think it's so binary. I've gone clubbing with girls and they slammed my hands to the wall and wanted to fuck. Aloofness is part of the game. Teasing or whatever. Some relationships I've been in were give and take, others the girl was literally fucking useless with planning and i always had to come up with shit. I only tolerated it because she was hot but my more enjoyable relationships had a balance or at least didn't have a massive over representation of sub or dom.

>Black people usually have the manliest bodies.
why do americans think this? blacks are generally scrawny or fat, neither particularly masculine

>Here: mtv.com/news/2082976/women-like-guys-butts-science/
>It is a women's magazine. It is dumb but at least we can trust it being accurate about what women like.
mtv is a left-wing propaganda network, they will promote any claim that the sexes are the same

>outliers define the trend
hang yourself brainlet

how do I de-soy?

my point is that we're assuming that estrogen will equally affect physical and nonphysical traits. There's no reason to assume that.

>Sub is not girly thats only in your brain. Mistresses are a thing you know?

LOL gtfo

>im gonna generalize a whole gender

except I'm not generalizing, it's just the truth. I'm not even a right winger. Women are almost all submissive, or submissive with brief streaks of very light domination.

A cis woman who is dominant, in a long term relationship, and doesn't cheat on her partner is essentially nonexistent.

they have the highest muscle mass and lowest body fat %, so yes it makes sense.