View Single Post
Old 03-28-2013, 03:20 PM   #14
SaxonViolence
Senior Member
Brawn
Points: 1,222, Level: 19 Points: 1,222, Level: 19 Points: 1,222, Level: 19
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
SaxonViolence's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 208
Reputation: 15410
SaxonViolence is a dedicated contributorSaxonViolence is a dedicated contributorSaxonViolence is a dedicated contributorSaxonViolence is a dedicated contributorSaxonViolence is a dedicated contributorSaxonViolence is a dedicated contributorSaxonViolence is a dedicated contributorSaxonViolence is a dedicated contributorSaxonViolence is a dedicated contributorSaxonViolence is a dedicated contributorSaxonViolence is a dedicated contributor
Cool

HMMmmmnn...?

!Kung Bushman live a pretty Primitive Life—or at least they did well into the 20th Century—back in the Present.

Yeah, those little dudes can run on par with an Olympic Marathon Runner—on a far more restricted Diet.

They cannot run at sprint speed over hill-and-dale the way the Article suggests.

Why are the Neanderthals extinct (or thoroughly absorbed)?

Well no one knows, but given their Physiques—Strong Dudes to be sure...

But Cro-Magnons could have quite literally run circles around a Neanderthal in a chase—and done it on perhaps 3600 Calories per day—for a large male—compared to 4800-5000 Calories per day for a 5"4" Neanderthal.

Folks who study Martial Arts dug out an Olde Tyme Booke describing what a Medieval Knight was supposed to be able to do in Armor.

It kinda puts a lie to the idea that those fellows stumbled into combat like a bunch of Arthritic Geriatrics under the Burden of their Armor...

In fact, they could do cartwheels and climb ladders and do Jungle Gym stuff...

But contemporary Practitioners—who did not have the advantage of training in Armor from earliest childhood—can still duplicate most of the Stunts.

{And no, Medieval Knights were not Pygmies—those tiny suits of Armor were Tailored for Medieval Children—in Training—and so many of those tiny suits survived precisely because they weren't abused in battle.}

You know, I argue that our values and Culture are becoming increasingly Effeminate...

But lets not make specious claims.

I did read that over the last 3000-5000 years, our facial features have become noticably less Robust (i.e. more Feminine Looking)

A girl in 3000 B.C. could have been considered quite feminine and pretty with a face like that the Average man's face today—sans beard, of course.

There may be other factors at play...

But it could be that both men and women, given a choice, prefer a "Prettier" (less robust) face.

And yes, there are a few men (and women) around who are trollish looking to the point that they cause sow pigs to miscarry from fright—but I'm talking about the Average.


Saxon Violence

Ps: Prefer a "Prettier" face in a Mate.

Prior to Plastic Surgery, one's preferences affected one's facial features not at all...

Last edited by SaxonViolence; 03-28-2013 at 03:24 PM.
SaxonViolence is offline   Reply With Quote