Brutal Human sexual selection isn’t eugenic. I wouldn’t mind true eugenics.

[CosmicInjustice]

People forget that there are two parents to every child. Fathers are not the only gene-bearers.

True, naturally-imposed eugenics is a fantasy. Our current system allows for sub-human female genes to thrive.

True eugenics would entail that all of us would be able to be with our looksmatch, we just wouldn’t be able to have children. Perfectly fine with me since I don’t even want kids to pass these genetics on to. True eugenics would crush the spirits of all sub-human women who, in modern society, aim for the 7/10+ of society. Sub-human women would be forced to face the fact that no attractive man would ever be attracted to them, nor fuck them, much less have a relationship with them. True eugenics would entail a fictional scenario where sub-human women actually appreciate their sub-human male counterparts because they know they could never do better. Sadly, even if she knew that she couldn’t do better, I think she would still dream of a superior man. I must say that I have very low standards for female looks but I doubt any woman can honestly say the same.

Alas, true eugenics is mere fantasy in our present society, with the overabundance of cucks, simps, and attractive men who are fine with having ugly concubines. What’s more, some of the women considered the most attractive have a short height. As long as short women are seen as attractive, short men will be bred.

 

[BasedGoyslopReviews]

indeed
men are far too horny for any living foid with a hole, to have eugenics
and on the foids side
the only eugenic trait they care about is being over 6ft tall
they will procreate with a sickly leper with hereditary illnesses so long as he is 6'5

 

[BasedGoyslopReviews]

for the record, miscegenation is dysgenics at its most extreme
anyone complaining about eugenics in a country that has legalized miscegenation doesnt know what theyre talking about

 

[MRHK_57]

Natural eugenics is real. The only problem is evolution doesn't care about the traits we deem superior.

 

[CosmicInjustice]

Natural eugenics is real. The only problem is evolution doesn't care about the traits we deem superior.

Are you suggesting that current reproduction habits of humanity are in line with nature? How would you explain the apparent contradiction in trait selection. For example the height thing, where short women are fine or even considered preferable to men, while short men are repulsive to women.

 

[Mr.Breb]

Yes, it would have to be checked on women if they have good gens. Example: check which would be their height if they were male based on their current height
Still sexual selection is good with men, but in teenage, not in mid 30's. So, ban betabuxer from betabuxing. To determine this I would say anyone who lost virginity being 19 or more should not have kids. As the main rule, there can be others

 

[Maikowski]

Eugenics would mean foids select for intelligence and character, sexual selection is dysgenic as fuck in humans, foids select retards and felons

 

[Mr.Breb]

Are you suggesting that current reproduction habits of humanity are in line with nature? How would you explain the apparent contradiction in trait selection. For example the height thing, where short women are fine or even considered preferable to men, while short men are repulsive to women.

Probably bc evolution is not always clever. There are many useless things. Example peacock tail. It's useless but female chose it because in the beginning before being exaggerated it was a good indicator of a sexual mate. Same with human penis size I read once.
Foid height example, at least my theory: if a foid is shorter it means she consumes less energy on her body and more in the baby

 

[BlackPilledNormi]

Eugenics worked back when we humans lived pretty much like animals. But the categories by which women select men remained the same like back then, but these categories are outdated and in todays world we would need different ones

 

[MRHK_57]

Are you suggesting that current reproduction habits of humanity are in line with nature? How would you explain the apparent contradiction in trait selection. For example the height thing, where short women are fine or even considered preferable to men, while short men are repulsive to women.

What are you saying is precisely my point. I've said that we tend to prioritize things that from an evolutionary standpoint doesn't make much sense. (It's a blind process after all) And I think you agree with that.

 

[aryanmikmaq]

People forget that there are two parents to every child. Fathers are not the only gene-bearers.

True, naturally-imposed eugenics is a fantasy. Our current system allows for sub-human female genes to thrive.

True eugenics would entail that all of us would be able to be with our looksmatch, we just wouldn’t be able to have children. Perfectly fine with me since I don’t even want kids to pass these genetics on to. True eugenics would crush the spirits of all sub-human women who, in modern society, aim for the 7/10+ of society. Sub-human women would be forced to face the fact that no attractive man would ever be attracted to them, nor fuck them, much less have a relationship with them. True eugenics would entail a fictional scenario where sub-human women actually appreciate their sub-human male counterparts because they know they could never do better. Sadly, even if she knew that she couldn’t do better, I think she would still dream of a superior man. I must say that I have very low standards for female looks but I doubt any woman can honestly say the same.

Alas, true eugenics is mere fantasy in our present society, with the overabundance of cucks, simps, and attractive men who are fine with having ugly concubines. What’s more, some of the women considered the most attractive have a short height. As long as short women are seen as attractive, short men will be bred.Teue

People forget that there are two parents to every child. Fathers are not the only gene-bearers.

True, naturally-imposed eugenics is a fantasy. Our current system allows for sub-human female genes to thrive.

True eugenics would entail that all of us would be able to be with our looksmatch, we just wouldn’t be able to have children. Perfectly fine with me since I don’t even want kids to pass these genetics on to. True eugenics would crush the spirits of all sub-human women who, in modern society, aim for the 7/10+ of society. Sub-human women would be forced to face the fact that no attractive man would ever be attracted to them, nor fuck them, much less have a relationship with them. True eugenics would entail a fictional scenario where sub-human women actually appreciate their sub-human male counterparts because they know they could never do better. Sadly, even if she knew that she couldn’t do better, I think she would still dream of a superior man. I must say that I have very low standards for female looks but I doubt any woman can honestly say the same.

Alas, true eugenics is mere fantasy in our present society, with the overabundance of cucks, simps, and attractive men who are fine with having ugly concubines. What’s more, some of the women considered the most attractive have a short height. As long as short women are seen as attractive, short men will be bred.

true

 

[DepravedAndDeprived]

anyone complaining about eugenics in a country that has legalized miscegenation doesnt know what theyre talking about