D
It's like women don't have bad genetics that pollute the gene pool as well. If it wasn't for modern technology there would be way more women who die from childbirth alone
W
Gynocentric species
Bc it’s bullshit. Nature doesen’t care about selecting the best genes. Otherwise men wouldn’t be attracted to foids with bad genetics, such as short goblinas.
Foids do care about this because they believe they are entitled to the best of the best
Foids do care about this because they believe they are entitled to the best of the best
Because UNIVERSE is inherently evil
And what the fuck are GOOD GENES anyway? Who the fuck decides what are they? Is universe itself claiming oh these genes bad, those are good? If so, the fuckin why? Then again, that would mean life has some vocation, but yet it doesn't since even if GOOD GENES were OBJECTIVE then those motherfuckers also will die and Earth can be strucked with meteor and all life would end on this planet. So inherently there is no point of all of it and life is pointless suffering.
Women have to be more concerned about good genes tbh, because they are the ones who get pregnant and are more attached to their offspring, that’s why they care more about having a healthy offspring, men usually care less about their children
What are GOOD GENES? Why do we need to survive? Why do we need to repeat same stupid scheme for millions of years just to born and die?
C‘mon, it’s not hard to understand what good genes are
There are many cases in which certain species gone exctinct, because of MUH SUPERIOR GENES, since they developed features making them harder to survive but more appealing to females. So what's up? Example: saber-toothed tiger. Why aren't they alive and those without big teeth exist?
Last edited:
Name one
Irish elk, saber toothed tiger
Did the Irish elk tell you this?
Yep, plus toilets aren't attracted to the best genes, they're attracted to the genes they're programmed to be attracted to. Some Eugenicists think that toilets are Chad only because Chad is superior in every way, but many Chad's are utter morons.
The only female sapiophiles I know are all intelligent themselves, most toilets don't care about it. Many other skills aren't selected for either. They don't select what they're attracted to.
Attraction ≠ Superior genes, this is a misconception. There are evolutionary benefits initially and evolutionists do try to point these out how they could be beneficial. But a lot of the times detrimental forms of attraction can simply become more successful because it's a by-product of something else.
Men don't have standards
What is that logic? No of course it didn't. Deduction helps with reasoning. Big ass antlers were making him slower and less agile so he was easier prey. If you think it's not that way, okay - THEN EXPLAIN what are good genes. Because PREFERENCE for certain GENES doesn't mean THEY ARE GOOD, because that would mean they have some vocation and if that vocation is survival, then there are genes making someone incel with small body and for example during famine, chad would need more calories than that incel and who knows, maybe incel would live longer and chad died out, so by logic of SURVIVAL chad's genes are worthless in that scenario
That's off topic, humans are only a little bit smarter than monkeys, just because they are attracted to something it doesen’t mean it’s good for them, it just means, they believe it’s good for them
How is that off topic? You made stupid questions to try shut me up and after all you even agreed with me it doesn't make sense, that genetic selection.
women = selection for brains
men = selection for frame size and character
men = selection for frame size and character
: How is that off topic? You made stupid questions to try shut me up and after all you even agreed with me it doesn't make sense, that genetic selection.
L
Inceldom is the result of low quality women (e.g. 3-4/10s) pairing up with Chads and then having offspring
Inceldom is the result of low quality women (e.g. 3-4/10s) pairing up with Chads and then having offspring
Human sexuality evolved in hunter-gatherer groups of a 100-300 people.
Infant mortality was high. So, kids needed to me made regularly in order to replace the ones who died.
In these groups it was expected that only ~10% would be foids of childbearing age, so ~10-30 foids, who would be constantly pregnant in order to maintain the population stable. Most males were capable of inseminating a foid, maybe 80% of the males, excluding only the boys under 12.
So, if a group would abstain from using the womb of 1 foid because she's ugly or something, they'd be losing a proportionally large share of their reproductive resources. In fact, many males would take the opportunity to breed even the ugliest foid in the village.
However, a dozen breeding males is all it takes to keep the population stable, so even if 2/3 of the men died or didn't reproduce, the remainder would be able to keep the population going.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
