Based I think " hookups " are natural for man .

[Kiko12]

The thing you guys and west culture calling a "hookup" i think its a natural behaviour of a high T male , just to spread his seed accross as many females as possible . A man typically got a few females in his stable to defend and protect but not the other way around .

But today , cuz of feminism and the wealth of the west - woman dont need protection and food therefor they too act as a man and try to sleep with many guys as possible , but suprise suprise - you never see a woman with a few husbands or boyfriends that she provide for , But you almost allways see a man with alot of woman .


Therefor my conclusion is - hookups is a natural male behaviour

 

[BrendioEEE]

 

[Deleted member 20811]

High IQ

 

[BraincelsRefugee]

Natural for omegachads only, hypergamy in nature is worse than in human society, though the ability to access any chad in a 100 mile radius using a portable device in your pocket and being able to get there in 2 hours is certainly turning the tables.

 

[Personalityinkwell]

Our clown world has created the opposite where any woman can get a one night stand but only a small amount of men can. It's not healthy for females to sleep around like this.

 

[Deleted member 24048]

More to do with the fact men don't become pregnant so having sex with a sub par woman poses no risk to men. Men would have fucked every women they could have for the most part back in the jungle. Women are hypergamous because they are the ones who have to bare children.

Civilization is such a small part of history that it hasn't really changed us much in terms of evolution. Our IQ has not increased since civilization, just our ability to pass on knowledge imo.

 

[grondilu]

Roughly speaking, males have a reproductive strategy K, while females have a reproductive strategy r.

r/K selection theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Kiko12]

Roughly speaking, males have a reproductive strategy K, while females have a reproductive strategy r.

r/K selection theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This .

More to do with the fact men don't become pregnant so having sex with a sub par woman poses no risk to men. Men would have fucked every women they could have for the most part back in the jungle. Women are hypergamous because they are the ones who have to bare children.

Civilization is such a small part of history that it hasn't really changed us much in terms of evolution. Our IQ has not increased since civilization, just our ability to pass on knowledge imo.

And this .



Also i think monogamy is benefitting only the avarage normie , i think a rich chad could have many woman in his place and those woman will be just fine with it .

Its like monogamy is somekind of a mechnism to controll the sexual market or something

 

[Robtical]

More to do with the fact men don't become pregnant so having sex with a sub par woman poses no risk to men. Men would have fucked every women they could have for the most part back in the jungle. Women are hypergamous because they are the ones who have to bare children.

That doesn't explain it, because they never have children with most of those chads, and if they do they get abortions. They also start going for betamale cucks in their 30's when their eggs are the least fertile and healthy. So reproductive success isn't whores goals in chad dick chasing.

 

[grondilu]

Its like monogamy is somekind of a mechnism to controll the sexual market or something

Yeah it was to reproduction what socialism is to production.

Polygamy should be the norm because it's more compatible with the Pareto principle. Unmarried men would have to share a small number of prostitutes.

 

[Deleted member 24048]

That doesn't explain it, because they never have children with most of those chads, and if they do they get abortions. They also start going for betamale cucks in their 30's when their eggs are the least fertile and healthy. So reproductive success isn't whores goal in chad dick chasing.

They often have children with those chads. Of course many women want money over love (chad) because chad is not monogamous and he doesn't act like an obedient slave. Of course she would prefer to have chads baby over betabuxxer, if she's cunning enough she may do just that.

 

[grondilu]

That doesn't explain it, because they never have children with most of those chads, and if they do they get abortions. They also start going for betamale cucks in their 30's when their eggs are the least fertile and healthy. So reproductive success isn't whores goals in chad dick chasing.

Their reproductive behavior has evolved way before abortion or any form of contraception was a serious option.

There is also the physiological danger of childbirth. That alone changes the selective pressure between genders drastically.

 

[Robtical]

They often have children with those chads. Of course many women want money over love (chad) because chad is not monogamous and he doesn't act like an obedient slave. Of course she would prefer to have chads baby over betabuxxer, if she's cunning enough she may do just that.

90% of the time chad dick chasers don't end up having the chad's babies they get fucked by.

Their reproductive behavior has evolved way before abortion or any form of contraception was a serious option.

Men didn't evolve to be beta cucks for 30+ year old whores either.

 

[Kiko12]

Yeah it was to reproduction what socialism is to production.

Polygamy should be the norm because it's more compatible with the Pareto principle. Unmarried men would have to share a small number of prostitutes.

Polygamy is the norm for man , not woman that my point here , everyone like sex but it is only the man you usually see with a bunch of woman , why is that ? - you dont see a "strong indeoendent woman " with alot of guys to take care of .

Polygamy is good for us - man . Not woman ..infact woman cant have it , and if they do one of the males called a " cuck " and he got envy and he will try to kill the other guy

 

[Deleted member 20659]

hookups is a natural male behaviour

No its degenerate

 

[grondilu]

Men didn't evolve to be beta cucks for 30+ year old whores either.

Beta cucks are still basically following the provider role. It's just that they get a very old, used up wife. A 30+ female is still technically fertile.

 

[Robtical]

Beta cucks are still basically following the provider role. It's just that they get a very old, used up wife. A 30+ female is still technically fertile.

Being a provider to a used old whore with bad fertility is like a virgin stacy getting prgenant by a 50 year old curry janitor.

 

[grondilu]

Being a provider to a used old whore with bad fertility is like a virgin stacy getting prgenant by a 50 year old curry janitor.

Well, if reproduction was a game, you'd say those are terrible players, but they're still players.
We're worse than them.

 

[Robtical]

Well, if reproduction was a game, you'd say those are terrible players, but they're still players.
We're worse than them.

If the game sucks and isn't fair you can choose not to play. Better escortcel than cuck.

 

[grondilu]

If the game sucks and isn't fair you can choose not to play. Better escortcel than cuck.

I do not disagree with that.

(though I really wish people would say hookercel or whoremaxxing instead of escortcel/maxxing)

 

[Numb]

Pairbonding feedback loop

 

[Robtical]

(though I really wish people would say hookercel or whoremaxxing instead of escortcel/maxxing)

That's right. Escort is too respectful to name whores.

 

[grondilu]

That's right. Escort is too respectful to name whores.

Agreed.

"Escort" is an euphemism. We don't need that. Let's call a spade a spade.

 

[HowCanSheSlap]

Naturalistic fallacy. As David Hume said you can't derive an ought from an is.

Is violence natural? Maybe. Does that mean we should promote it, embrace it and glorify it? No.

Same with sex. It's gone too far in society nowadays. We shouldnt repress it, neither become completely sexualised. Many (non-white) cultures around the world have morals and discipline when it comes to sex. It was always considered a baser function of human nature.

No its degenerate

 

[HowCanSheSlap]

Why not lol

Are you a nihilistcel?

 

[Deleted member 20659]

you can't derive an ought from an is.

I have a will, therefore I ought to act upon it, in keeping with my nature of being self interested and not a castrated cuck. You can derive an ought from an is if its the nature of the subject in question to act according to his perception of a state of affairs. But in this case it wouldnt be a moral imperative but a descriptive law

Are you a nihilistcel?

Idk tbh

 

[Kiko12]

Naturalistic fallacy. As David Hume said you can't derive an ought from an is.

Is violence natural? Maybe. Does that mean we should promote it, embrace it and glorify it? No.

Same with sex. It's gone too far in society nowadays. We shouldnt repress it, neither become completely sexualised. Many (non-white) cultures around the world have morals and discipline when it comes to sex. It was always considered a baser function of human nature.

My argument was , hookups is Natural for man , and you said i cant use nature as a tool here to base my claims , well that make no sense , its like telling a progrramer " you cant use C++ to code the game " apeal to nature -fallacy - is a stupid argument cuz it take out the Database in which im baseing my claims from - Reality

Now you can "tweak" reality with monogamy and other bullshit all you want , but at the end of the day its still the same Reality .

 

[FukFeminism]

Our clown world has created the opposite where any woman can get a one night stand but only a small amount of men can. It's not healthy for females to sleep around like this.

 

[HowCanSheSlap]

I have a will, therefore I ought to act upon it, in keeping with my nature of being self interested and not a castrated cuck. You can derive an ought from an is if its the nature of the subject in question to act according to his perception of a state of affairs. But in this case it wouldnt be a moral imperative but a descriptive law

A moral imperative is something you ought to do and is thus prescriptive. You can choose not to do it, but claiming its natural not to and therefore you shouldn't isn't a logical leap. If something is 'natural' - or the way it is, it's logically impossible to extrapolate from it; you can't derive an ought from what is the case.

The leap from 'I want to fuck foids' to 'I should be fucking foids' - you can't logically say that. It's not a valid syllogism.

My argument was , hookups is Natural for man , and you said i cant use nature as a tool here to base my claims , well that make no sense , its like telling a progrramer " you cant use C++ to code the game " apeal to nature -fallacy - is a stupid argument cuz it take out the Database in which im baseing my claims from - Reality

Now you can "tweak" reality with monogamy and other bullshit all you want , but at the end of the day its still the same Reality .

See above.

Also I'm not tweaking 'monogamy with reality' - I'm saying 'reality' doesn't presuppose a 'should' or 'shouldn't' for that matter.

 

[Deleted member 20659]

you can't derive an ought from what is the case.

If it is my nature to act upon what is the case (my perception of my own desires), I should act upon my desires in order to abide by my dharma (nature/duty). The fact that in our age of dissolution it is a real question if I should abide by this natural law (dharma) or that I should provide rational justifications for doing so is is to be expected since we live in the Kali Yuga, but the men of higher nature are guided by what is above reason. They see no point in justifying actions through petty arguments, empty abstractions or even language, they know this is charicature of true intellect. Their is the way of transcendence through action.

'I want to fuck foids' therefore 'I should be fucking a foids'

Yes. I stand by this

 

[HowCanSheSlap]

If it is my nature to act upon what is the case (my perception of my own desires), I should act upon my desires in order to abide by my dharma (nature/duty). The fact that in our age of dissolution it is a real question if I should abide by this natural law (dharma) or that I should provide rational justifications for doing so is is to be expected since we live in the Kali Yuga, but the men of higher nature are guided by what is above reason. They see no point in justifying actions through petty arguments, empty abstractions or even language, they know this is charicature of true intellect. Their is the way of transcendence through action.

Well, if you say reason and ethics are not since 'men of higher nature are guided by what is above reason' then you can't rationally argue this point. Many fags by the same logic argue that because they act upon their desire that it is in their nature to take dicks up their ass, they therefore should. Congratz on enabling fagtards.

Yes. I stand by this

Is–ought problem - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Deleted member 20659]

Is–ought problem - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If i desire something, it should be realized.
Simples as. Thus is divine Justice

Many fags by the same logic argue that because they act upon their desire that it is in their nature to take dicks up their ass, they therefore should.

Degeneracy is adharmic

 

[turbocuckcel_7000]

 

[Deleted member 24081]

View attachment 192833

Based

 

[deathsh+rt]

damn foids to hell and back.

 

[Deleted member 16390]

Because of the gestation period. A foid lean toward biological monogamy. She need the father to be faithful and provide and protect while with child. A man body is free to impregnate as many times as he can per day. Emotional monogamy and comittment is needed to bond a couple till death do us part.

 

[Kiko12]

Because of the gestation period. A foid lean toward biological monogamy. She need the father to be faithful and provide and protect while with child. A man body is free to impregnate as many times as he can per day. Emotional monogamy and comittment is needed to bond a couple till death do us part.

It is very ..very ..very dangerous to be emotionally attach to a woman ..very dangerous , dont ever do this , it will destroy you in this day and age .

 

[Deleted member 16390]

It is very ..very ..very dangerous to be emotionally attach to a woman ..very dangerous , dont ever do this , it will destroy you in this day and age .
What my point is even though a man does not have the restriction a foid have . He can still choose to be emotional monogamous. Also i agree .for the average Joe. He will never meet a foid worthy to be emotionally attach to. Or if he does . She will reject him.