Dedicated to:
This thread is designed to explain the biology behind the Blackpill. It is intended as both a resource for non-cels to take the Blackpill and Incels to better hone their argumentation skills regarding the Blackpill. Let's begin.
A while back, my bio teacher shown us this video as an introduction to evolution and taxonomy:
In this video, a special type of Natural Selection was mentioned:
Sexual Selection.
What is Sexual Selection? It is selection, mostly by females of the species, of mates from the males of the species based on attractive sexual traits of the male. Rather than directly going off of traits that would help for survival in the environment, such as ability to find food or strength to fight other animals to protect the female, it is selection and ranking based off of traits that the female finds sexually appealing, things that don't immediately pertain to the health of an individual of a species or it's capability to survive in it's environment.
What are some examples? Here are two of them:
To see what human females (I know that is an oxymoron but just hold out w/ me) select for, let's see, in our millions of evolution, compared to our primate ancestors, what has been improved on and not:
You may be asking: But what about smarts? Aren't we smarter than our ancestors? My rebuttal to that would be is that both in the past and present smarter individuals of a species were the ones to be able to survive long enough to reproduce, but smartness in it of it self is not a trait women would filter for, correlation does not imply causation! One needs to survive long enough to mate, but one mating starts, one needs to be attractive or all that surviving will be pointless. Seeing as how we are significantly weaker than other animals, to survive we needed to be smart, but to mate we needed to look good.
(A mundane philosophical point for those who actually brought up the """smartness""" point: You are still suggesting that sexual selection exists in humans, just that the standard of it is different. You haven't yet disproved the blackpill.)
We can even see this with everyday examples: Many models, being paid less than ugly engineers, are able to get far more women due to sexual selection than the inverse.
One may ask: But aren't women in the same situation? My response would be that throughout history, when males were given all the burden of creating a feasible society across all species and peoples, and women are the ones responsible for giving live birth in mammals, in those cases, for the continuation of her line, and as payment for the pain and nurturing needed for that offspring, Sexual Selection was implemented. That's why we see many cases of species where live birth and female nurturing of the offspring being a thing, that Sexual Selection was Implemented.
Normies often make the same mistake that Lamarck once did with his 'Use and Disuse' theory. A person's looks are all genetic, and there is no way (unless you're a Biomedical engineer) to change your genes, no matter how much you try or want to. The fact that there are so many of them and their use of sarcasm as well as general tone and method of speaking is a similar gift of Lamarck, however, with the same flaws as Lamarck.
In conclusion: Through the use of Sexual Selection in society, it can be proved that the earlier thesis of the Blackpill is factually valid and that attractive traits in males are the dominant factor in what individuals of a species mate with whom. These traits are unchangeable, thus the likelihood of a male individual mating was set from te time of his birth by the genetic recombination of his parents.
GOOD YARD.
INCELISTAN ZINDABAD!
- The Shaheeds of Incelistan and those who work for it's Independence and growth.
- The memories and nation of Incelistan.
- The Incelistani Peoples.
- My Cucked Biology Teacher.
This thread is designed to explain the biology behind the Blackpill. It is intended as both a resource for non-cels to take the Blackpill and Incels to better hone their argumentation skills regarding the Blackpill. Let's begin.
A while back, my bio teacher shown us this video as an introduction to evolution and taxonomy:
In this video, a special type of Natural Selection was mentioned:
Sexual Selection.
What is Sexual Selection? It is selection, mostly by females of the species, of mates from the males of the species based on attractive sexual traits of the male. Rather than directly going off of traits that would help for survival in the environment, such as ability to find food or strength to fight other animals to protect the female, it is selection and ranking based off of traits that the female finds sexually appealing, things that don't immediately pertain to the health of an individual of a species or it's capability to survive in it's environment.
What are some examples? Here are two of them:
- Peacocks: The female peacocks choose based off of feather display of the males. Larger and more colorful displays of feathers means a higher chance as mating as a male. This selection, purely in terms of survival, is almost counterproductive, as predators will be able to recognize larger and colorful patterns more easily than obscure ones.
- Blue-Footed Boobies: The female Blue-Footed Boobies choose the males off of how blue their foot is. The bluer it is, the higher chance of mating there is for the males. This selection, in terms of survival, is also counterproductive, as predators will be able to recognize more blue feet better than ones that blend in with the environment.
To see what human females (I know that is an oxymoron but just hold out w/ me) select for, let's see, in our millions of evolution, compared to our primate ancestors, what has been improved on and not:
- Height: Yes, we are taller than our ancestors.
- Face: Yes, we are more handsome and better looking than our ancestors.
- Personality: No, no evidence of any improvement there has been found.
- Confidence: No, no evidence of any improvement there has been found.
- Dimorphism: Sorta, slower than others, but it has been increasing, as the next and previous generation of foids choose for more masculine facial traits (JFL at MTF trannies trying to transition in the future u fucked boyo)
You may be asking: But what about smarts? Aren't we smarter than our ancestors? My rebuttal to that would be is that both in the past and present smarter individuals of a species were the ones to be able to survive long enough to reproduce, but smartness in it of it self is not a trait women would filter for, correlation does not imply causation! One needs to survive long enough to mate, but one mating starts, one needs to be attractive or all that surviving will be pointless. Seeing as how we are significantly weaker than other animals, to survive we needed to be smart, but to mate we needed to look good.
(A mundane philosophical point for those who actually brought up the """smartness""" point: You are still suggesting that sexual selection exists in humans, just that the standard of it is different. You haven't yet disproved the blackpill.)
We can even see this with everyday examples: Many models, being paid less than ugly engineers, are able to get far more women due to sexual selection than the inverse.
One may ask: But aren't women in the same situation? My response would be that throughout history, when males were given all the burden of creating a feasible society across all species and peoples, and women are the ones responsible for giving live birth in mammals, in those cases, for the continuation of her line, and as payment for the pain and nurturing needed for that offspring, Sexual Selection was implemented. That's why we see many cases of species where live birth and female nurturing of the offspring being a thing, that Sexual Selection was Implemented.
Normies often make the same mistake that Lamarck once did with his 'Use and Disuse' theory. A person's looks are all genetic, and there is no way (unless you're a Biomedical engineer) to change your genes, no matter how much you try or want to. The fact that there are so many of them and their use of sarcasm as well as general tone and method of speaking is a similar gift of Lamarck, however, with the same flaws as Lamarck.
In conclusion: Through the use of Sexual Selection in society, it can be proved that the earlier thesis of the Blackpill is factually valid and that attractive traits in males are the dominant factor in what individuals of a species mate with whom. These traits are unchangeable, thus the likelihood of a male individual mating was set from te time of his birth by the genetic recombination of his parents.
GOOD YARD.
INCELISTAN ZINDABAD!
Last edited:
