The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
I'm no midwife but babies don't actually eat the breasts themselves do they
Perhaps not, but whether you're into 'tats, piercing and mohawks', 'ugly girls whose only redeeming factor appears to be a "big butt", see posts 920 & 921', or actually attractive girls I think we all agree that big breast are great!
I basically agree with you Alby, except for the part about big breasts. Big breasts = good nutrition for your offspring.
I don't believe larger breasts are at all correlated with milk production. I just googled it (weird search term) and all I see is anecdotal comments on yahoo answers and stuff when people asked it but there's unanimous responses that no, size does not make a difference when nursing. So I'm going to have to say, no, big breasts do not make a difference. However, they could still be a mistaken signal for that.
Regardless, I see people stating disagreement with my assessment using personal attacks but nothing concrete. Are you all saying that sexual selection is not biologically-determined? How does it not follow from that that we can determine the most biologically-useful and healthy traits and determine that preference for those traits or the signals of those traits corresponds to what is beauty, objectively and for all humans?
"Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
"I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi
Perhaps not, but whether you're into 'tats, piercing and mohawks', 'ugly girls whose only redeeming factor appears to be a "big butt", see posts 920 & 921', or actually attractive girls I think we all agree that big breast are great!
Huh? Okay, the second picture her face looked a little weird with the makeup and the expression but she looks cute in the face in the first picture. And 'big butt'? It's more than that. One, it's not about 'big butt' which could just mean someone's fat as ****. It's about gluteal development.
And it's more than that. It's about the quadriceps, hamstrings, hips, waist to hip ratio, etc.
Let's get objective here. Present you with two specimens... which one would you expect to be physically more capable? Which one has the physical hallmarks of a woman who could run, pick up heavy things, etc.?
The second girl that self biased posted... she's cute but she's not a woman. She has a body of a pubescent girl. Does she look like she could even carry 30lbs? Do those scrawny legs look like they could handle a weighted squat or sprint at a good clip? Yeah the **** right.
She is just a step up from anorexic fashion models.
And it's not just about the legs, hips, glutes, and lower back, as important as those areas are for physical activities. The woman I posted looks a lot stronger in the upper body than the scrawny chick.
See, conceptions of male attractiveness tend to be pretty utilitarian. Women usually prefer lean muscular men, right? There's an obvious biological utility in preferring such men.
Yet why does that not hold true for female attractiveness? What the hell is wrong with most of you (with the exception of Spec and a few others) that your sexual selectors are screwed up that they're not firing at the signals of health and virility?
"Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
"I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi
As for why we aren't attracted to women who look like they could make it in the savanna, it's because we aren't hunter-gatherers living in a savanna culture. Thank God.
It's biology, gribbler. It's all biology. What you are denoting to 'culture' is just a manifestation of biology. Culture is the ultimate phenotype.
"Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
"I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi
Culture plays a huge role in what people find attractive. It's no surprise that Albert, a man from the ghetto, prizes big butts.
And this 'big butts' nonsense is nonsense. It's not about sheer butt size. A woman could be fat as **** and have a huge butt but what the hell good is that? Some men like that but that's just as much a misfiring of signals as anything else.
Honestly, I look at the hips and thighs in general before the butt but 99% of the time if a woman has developed thighs and wide hips she probably has developed glutes, as well. And 9 times out of 10, if she has the lower body of a female sprinter or something close to it but not as highly-trained, she probably is pretty strong in the upper body.
Compare the legs and general body type of this woman with the video vixen above. Pretty similar:
"Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
"I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi
Look, what's the difference between women and men? I know it's like what the hell do women prefer in men anyway? But I think generally speaking we can agree that women prefer men with lean muscular bodies, right? Everything from big arms to a six pack are signals that spark interest in a woman's mind. The utilitarian benefits of a mate with muscles is obvious so that's why women prefer such men.
But why do some men (you) prefer sticks with big breasts? There's no utility in that! Your sexual preferences are broken. The innate things in your psychology that should prefer a woman who is built like a woman who looks like she could handle herself on the savanna, are not firing when you see a woman like that and are instead firing on something else.
Your sexual fixations are no longer in line with basic biological necessity. Something is wrong.
Yes, our modern world allows those biologically inefficient body types to survive and flourish and it is not damning to hold such preferences. However, that does not change the evidence of my assertion that beauty is not subjective but is determined by biology. You're just (intentionally or not) over-riding biology with your sexual preferences.
"Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
"I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi
you started this debate by making some ridiculous statements and it's nice to see you continuing in the same vein.
Ridiculous statements? It is nothing more than an extension of the 'Good Genes Hypothesis' of sexual selection.
Do you deny that animals are biologically programmed to prefer in a mate traits which are signals for good genes, health, etc.?
I guess Darwin and the last 150 years of biology were all so wrong!
"Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
"I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi
Uh, sexuality really isn't that simple, or we'd all look identical. Or at least a lot more similar than we do now. I, for example, generally don't find muscle development attractive in a woman. I don't find it necessarily unattractive either, except insofar as too much of it comes across as mannish and therefore icky. You apparently disagree. This may be because you give off gaydar signals powerful enough to jam satellites in Clarke orbit, but it could also be a simple matter of preference. I find piercings repulsive except for the ears, which I'm socially conditioned to accept. Self-biased disagrees.
And if you're going to invoke Darwin, the main criterion for whether sexuality is "broken" would seem to be whether the individual succeeds in finding a mate/reproducing (ahem). Sexual selection is quite frequently contrary to apparent viability--see peacock tails.
Tweet
Comment