There's for some reason a widespread belief that hypergamy is eugenic and seizing femoids is not. However, the order here is exactly opposite. Femoids' choces are ex definitione harmful not only for society, but also for a genepool. How, would you ask?
Due to
Runaway Selection, mean of reproduction, when given freedom, will always select for traits which concentrations they're aiming for are dysgenic. This shall lead to extreme overgrown in these traits and degradation of specie; and, eventually, to its extinction. That's how
R. A. Fisher, greatest biologist after Darwin, describe this process, although with some flaws:
Fisher's article „The evolution of sexual preference” in The Eugenics Review, p. 187, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2987134/?p
Species that are living (or not, on what we shall focus later) proofs of his thesis are to be infinitely counted. There are few examples, however, that portray this law the best.
View attachment 1621655
The most obvious bastard of sexual selection dysgenicity is, what's clear, a peacock. Its tail, longer than the animal itself, made of flashy, bright leathers, alarming every nearby predator of easy pray, finally making difficult not even merely flying, but every movement can cause only rightful disgust and reflection upon it in observer. Similar feelings to this, for Fisher's main object of observation were birds, were undoubtedly what impelled him to give his discovery a scientific grounding. It's also to be noted that Darwin shared similar opinion;
"The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me feel sick", he said.
View attachment 1621658
View attachment 1621659
Yet another victim of runaway effect is Babirussa. Its tusks are what the tails is in peacock, that is, are the trait which is selected for. As one can see, due to this their growth is so big, that they at first become useless, then finally impale the skull of the animal. Such a wonder of hypergamy!
View attachment 1621664
View attachment 1621665
Next specie to be found most physically degenerated thanks to sexual selection is strap-toothed whale. Its tusks, like in babirussa, are caricaturally overgrown, but in other way; they're making it almost impossible for this beast to open its jaw.
Beaked whales show remarkable sexual dimorphism in that only the males retain functional teeth. Male strap-toothed beaked whales begin to develop a large flat tusk from each lower jaw as juveniles, growing at a 45° angle back towards the head and over the rostrum (beak). Reaching up to 34 cm in length,[6] the teeth may overlap at the tips, restricting the gape size of the animal. Two stranded adult male strap-toothed beaked whales were recorded as only being able to open their mouths 3.2 cm and 4 cm wide, compared to females and juveniles that had a gape size of 6.5 cm. It is thought male beaked whales use their teeth to compete for mating access to females, as evidenced by scars and scratches on the bodies of males. However it is unlikely the whale uses the whole tusk for such aggressive interactions, instead, it is probable that only a small denticle found upon the upper surface of the tooth is utilised.
View attachment 1621673
View attachment 1621674
And crème de la crème of sexual selection, showing what's its final effect; species that got extinct because of it. Fisher, as we saw in his quote, argued that this mechanism will regulate itself at some point. However, modern sciences have shown that there in fact are kinds that extincted because of it, thus proving him wrong. Sexual selection is against natural selection.
Irish elk, one of the Pleistocene's biggest land mammals, got doomed because of its extravagant features, which were the result of hypergamy.
Source: https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/artio/irishelk.html
Finally, ostracoda depicted on the picture above is prime example of it. Blue area, taking one third of animal's body, is overgrown genitals. Because of this extreme dimorphism, in the past many kinds of this crustacea went extinct; modern ones are seemingly following their path.
Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7482269/ (I cite abstract because it's not my goal to explain here smallest details to a reader, but to give him rather broad perspective.)
But — one could say —
traits select for in these animals are particular and situation is different within our kind. I agree. It's truth that there's no singular trait in humans that foids desire
as such. But it's the end of nuances; traits are always considered in relations to each other. So is a lenght of a leg in proportion to lenght of another leg, these are in proportion to hips, torso; these are to each other, etc. There's one proportion of human qualities, including proportions that include height and facial traits, considered the most attratictive. Every deviation from the ideal result in lower attractiveness. However, this ideal proportion can multiplie its attractivnes in eyes of femoids by incrasing actual numbers in its particular proportions. Therefore physical human traits as a whole are the same as peacock's tail. To make humans dysgenic, fragile-leged, unsupplied in blood giants, and ultimately to doom our kind – would be result of hyperamy.
Yet there's the soltion to this problem: rape, this philosophical stone, the panacea for cancer consuming humanity. By seizing means of reproduction, truecel reverse dysgenicity of hypergamy and implements eugenics. With his free will, man stops rot of his kind and negate femoids' want of its degeneracy. This negation of runaway effect is thus physical bettering of our kind.
