Disclaimer: I study psychology as a secondary course in a community college, so we don't exactly learn about things that are extreamly complex, but I am curious and have looked into alot of online articles and studies related to the topic that I'm talking about in this post. I talk alot about evolutionary history in this post. Some people might reply to this saying "but we don't live in a primitive hunter gatherer environment anymore!" No, we don't. But that does not stop the human brain and its mechanisms that have evolved from living in such an environment for our entire history as a species. You cannot derail how are thought patterns evolved from living in a society for a few hundred to a few thousand years. And yes, we are conscious creatures capable of rational thought, but again that does not eliminate biological programming.
Introduction:
Alot of you don't seem to realise this, you cope with modern day societies issues and ignore blatent evolutionary psychology and biology. Most males were doomed from the start. You can call me a cuck all you want, and say that most of the problem is 'dating apps' and the modern day society catering for women. Which are problems themselves, but not the main one. Granted, monogamy is what kept everything in balance and I agree we should revert to that, I will admit it solved most males problems by 'forcing' women to settle for less attractive men for the financial security he could provide her as she could not enter the workforce (we've thrown that out the window now). The main problem is evolution and what has been optimized through this species for its continued success.
Most males never mated:
Most of the males that have lived never had the opportunity to pass on their genes. This is due to female sexual selectivity.
"On average (and over evolutionary time), any given human female has been more likely to reproduce than any given male. Said another way, males have had a higher variance in reproductive success than females. As a consequence, more different females have contributed to the modern gene pool than males."
This is not due to males dying before they had the opportunity to mate. Males die earlier than females on average. This is due to a variety of reasons including weaker immune systems and being more aggressive and more likely to die in confrontations. However, nature already dealt with this in the fact that more males are born than females. This insures that the same number of males and females make it to reproductive maturity.
www.livescience.com
Female selectivity:
How we pick partners is not a matter of taste, but a biological imperative. Certain traits are attractive because said traits increase the liklihood of an individual in a species surviving to pass on their genes.
Anyone who knows anything about evolution, will know that traits that were advantageous to a species get passed down to the next generation. This works along the lines of environmental selection (a fly with no wings will die and not get to mate because of it) but also along the lines of sexual selection (a female mates with a man that is taller; that trait gives the man an advantage at hunting; he can better provide food for her; they both survive; the gene that codes for the women to pick the tall man gets passed on; more women prefer taller men). Please note that this effect is not played to the extremes, being too tall comes with its own disadvantages.
Every single trait which we find attractive works in this manner. It is evolved. Women can have slightly different tastes in men for a variety of reasons, including media influence, parental influence and her own hormonal levels/physical traits amoung others. But these effects are minor comparative to the genetic ideal. No women in the world finds a recessed chin attractive. She may be able to look past it for a variety of reasons, but she does not find it attractive.
Attractive male features:
(Skip to 18:00 minutes into the video).
These traits are attractive for reasons relating to survival. A short midface is more impact resistant, a strong browridge protects the eyes during the hunt or fight etc.
Women are more valuable to the species (and why males are expendable):
Women are inherently more valueable than men because they are the ones who carry the baby and expend the effort in keeping it alive in their womb (let alone the dangers of childbirth). This is why women are in an advantageous position in the dating market. They are the selectors and as such can afford to be hypergamous and choosy. If they had not chosen a good male for mating purposes then they would have died because he would not have been able to provide food when she was pregnant (obviously women cannot hunt when they are pregnant) or fend off predators and other human confrontation.
Think about it this way. A single male can impregnate ten females in a single night. But only a single female can get pregnant at once. If 90% of the males in a tribe died, the tribe would have as many males the next generation, because the remaining 10% of males could impregnate all of the remaining females. If 90% of the females died, then you have a path to extinction. Nature is not very fond of extinction. Modern day societal norms stem from this. Where does the phrase "women and children off the boat first" come from? Men are expendable. Why were men forced into war. They are expendable. Why was it men that constituted the work force up until sixty years ago? They are expendable. Most men could die and the tribe/society/species would recover.
How does this relate to inceldom?:
For one reason or another, most males never mated. We can infer that the majority of males were doomed to this fate for many reasons whether they be for collecting more resources (as males are optimized for hunting) or having more variety in genetic quality for females to select from. This is most likely why we are incels. Evolution has contoured this species in such a way that most males would be simply not good enough for most women.
A theory I had:
I wrote about a theory I had way back in June/July on another incel forum way before I joined this one. The theory I had was that most males simply existed as drones, hunting and providing for the tribe yet never getting to mate. Males, being expendable as they are, simply hunted and gathered food to share with the tribe while Chad's provided the good genes to the women (a paleolithic betabuxx). This comes with many advantages in terms of evolution, males were optimised to hunt, so having an excess of males for that purpose is ideal. Chad's were usually the tribe leaders, the primary hunters if you will. Its not like the 'alpha male' leader was the best at hunting (though he often was) its also that he was the most respected, valued and shared the resources around well.
Q&A:
Why do ugly men still exist today if sexual selection was so biased against men? Two reasons. Firstly ugliness is not all genetic, environment still plays a role in development. Secondly ugly females still got to mate, as males would do anything to pass on their genetics considering their limited involvement in child rearing. Bad genetics come from females too.
Final note:
Ask me any questions you want to know and I'll do my best to give an accurate answer. I understand I'm going to have alot of negative reactions to this post. I have already stated that the indroduction of monogomy was a good thing and it really helped society flourish and blossom. The destruction of it, along with the internet and dating apps, has caused many incels in todays world who would not have been incel in the 1950s. But we have reverted to primal times, and it has caused great suffering. As perhaps suffering is the purest and most natural state of being, because without it, their would be no happiness (philosophy is gay).
TL;DR: Most males never got to mate and pass on their genes, we are expendable. It was over before it begun.
Introduction:
Alot of you don't seem to realise this, you cope with modern day societies issues and ignore blatent evolutionary psychology and biology. Most males were doomed from the start. You can call me a cuck all you want, and say that most of the problem is 'dating apps' and the modern day society catering for women. Which are problems themselves, but not the main one. Granted, monogamy is what kept everything in balance and I agree we should revert to that, I will admit it solved most males problems by 'forcing' women to settle for less attractive men for the financial security he could provide her as she could not enter the workforce (we've thrown that out the window now). The main problem is evolution and what has been optimized through this species for its continued success.
Most males never mated:
Most of the males that have lived never had the opportunity to pass on their genes. This is due to female sexual selectivity.
AARP Politics Forum Sunsetting Frequently Asked Questions
We wanted to let you know that AARP's online communities' politics forum has shut down as of April 5, 2021. Over time, the tone of the discussions in the politics forum had grown increasingly partisan and offensive. Unfortunately, it was preventing a civil exchange of ideas and viewpoints. We...
community.aarp.org
"On average (and over evolutionary time), any given human female has been more likely to reproduce than any given male. Said another way, males have had a higher variance in reproductive success than females. As a consequence, more different females have contributed to the modern gene pool than males."
This is not due to males dying before they had the opportunity to mate. Males die earlier than females on average. This is due to a variety of reasons including weaker immune systems and being more aggressive and more likely to die in confrontations. However, nature already dealt with this in the fact that more males are born than females. This insures that the same number of males and females make it to reproductive maturity.
Why Are More Boys Born Than Girls?
The human species has an inherent bias in its male-to-female sex ratio at birth. Biologists and demographers have long wondered why this should be the case.
www.livescience.com
Female selectivity:
How we pick partners is not a matter of taste, but a biological imperative. Certain traits are attractive because said traits increase the liklihood of an individual in a species surviving to pass on their genes.
Anyone who knows anything about evolution, will know that traits that were advantageous to a species get passed down to the next generation. This works along the lines of environmental selection (a fly with no wings will die and not get to mate because of it) but also along the lines of sexual selection (a female mates with a man that is taller; that trait gives the man an advantage at hunting; he can better provide food for her; they both survive; the gene that codes for the women to pick the tall man gets passed on; more women prefer taller men). Please note that this effect is not played to the extremes, being too tall comes with its own disadvantages.
Every single trait which we find attractive works in this manner. It is evolved. Women can have slightly different tastes in men for a variety of reasons, including media influence, parental influence and her own hormonal levels/physical traits amoung others. But these effects are minor comparative to the genetic ideal. No women in the world finds a recessed chin attractive. She may be able to look past it for a variety of reasons, but she does not find it attractive.
Attractive male features:
(Skip to 18:00 minutes into the video).
These traits are attractive for reasons relating to survival. A short midface is more impact resistant, a strong browridge protects the eyes during the hunt or fight etc.
Women are more valuable to the species (and why males are expendable):
Women are inherently more valueable than men because they are the ones who carry the baby and expend the effort in keeping it alive in their womb (let alone the dangers of childbirth). This is why women are in an advantageous position in the dating market. They are the selectors and as such can afford to be hypergamous and choosy. If they had not chosen a good male for mating purposes then they would have died because he would not have been able to provide food when she was pregnant (obviously women cannot hunt when they are pregnant) or fend off predators and other human confrontation.
Think about it this way. A single male can impregnate ten females in a single night. But only a single female can get pregnant at once. If 90% of the males in a tribe died, the tribe would have as many males the next generation, because the remaining 10% of males could impregnate all of the remaining females. If 90% of the females died, then you have a path to extinction. Nature is not very fond of extinction. Modern day societal norms stem from this. Where does the phrase "women and children off the boat first" come from? Men are expendable. Why were men forced into war. They are expendable. Why was it men that constituted the work force up until sixty years ago? They are expendable. Most men could die and the tribe/society/species would recover.
How does this relate to inceldom?:
For one reason or another, most males never mated. We can infer that the majority of males were doomed to this fate for many reasons whether they be for collecting more resources (as males are optimized for hunting) or having more variety in genetic quality for females to select from. This is most likely why we are incels. Evolution has contoured this species in such a way that most males would be simply not good enough for most women.
A theory I had:
I wrote about a theory I had way back in June/July on another incel forum way before I joined this one. The theory I had was that most males simply existed as drones, hunting and providing for the tribe yet never getting to mate. Males, being expendable as they are, simply hunted and gathered food to share with the tribe while Chad's provided the good genes to the women (a paleolithic betabuxx). This comes with many advantages in terms of evolution, males were optimised to hunt, so having an excess of males for that purpose is ideal. Chad's were usually the tribe leaders, the primary hunters if you will. Its not like the 'alpha male' leader was the best at hunting (though he often was) its also that he was the most respected, valued and shared the resources around well.
Q&A:
Why do ugly men still exist today if sexual selection was so biased against men? Two reasons. Firstly ugliness is not all genetic, environment still plays a role in development. Secondly ugly females still got to mate, as males would do anything to pass on their genetics considering their limited involvement in child rearing. Bad genetics come from females too.
Final note:
Ask me any questions you want to know and I'll do my best to give an accurate answer. I understand I'm going to have alot of negative reactions to this post. I have already stated that the indroduction of monogomy was a good thing and it really helped society flourish and blossom. The destruction of it, along with the internet and dating apps, has caused many incels in todays world who would not have been incel in the 1950s. But we have reverted to primal times, and it has caused great suffering. As perhaps suffering is the purest and most natural state of being, because without it, their would be no happiness (philosophy is gay).
TL;DR: Most males never got to mate and pass on their genes, we are expendable. It was over before it begun.
Last edited:
