Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Theory The evolutionary reason why men lack an in-group bias

Seahorsecel

Seahorsecel

Male Disposability Pill
★★★★
Joined
Dec 1, 2023
Posts
3,861
Women have an in-group bias 4.5 times stronger than men. I believe that there is an evolutionary reason for this.

A) Betraying other men is beneficial to men, but not to women

Let us say there are two men with a wife each.

Man A has an in-group bias that prevents him from hurting other men

Man B has no such bias.

Man B takes an axe and kills Man A. Man B takes his wife by force and mates with her. Man B passes on his genes.

B) Men compete for women

Women hold the key to reproduction. Some men take that key by force. Others use their looks to gain women consensually.

Men are designed to spread their genes far and wide. A man can take a dump on a woman, leave, and spread his genes. However, a woman must carry her baby for 9 months to procreate. So they are naturally fussy.

This is why men have much, much, much lower standards compared to women. Chad can fuck an ugly female and forget about her. If Stacy fucks a nasty male, she will bear the consequences. (Pun intended)

C) What happens is the supply of pussy does not meet the demand

Pussy is a precious resource in limited supply. Men compete for this resource to reproduce. Women do NOT need to compete with other women to reproduce, since they can all be in Chad's harem without an issue.

Think of women like highly prized wagyu beef that only the rich and powerful can taste.

D) In-group bias is beneficial for women

It helps them socialize. In-group bias has no bearing on a woman's ability to reproduce (unlike men, see point A), while a man would have something to gain by betraying his comrades.
 
Yes, it's a rigged game from the start. The realisation of it makes this hellish existence more torturous.
 
We should kill chad and enslave foids (in gta 5)
 
Never began for the male race. Natural born cucks and the biggest foid worshippers. It’s truly astounding how alone you are as a man. Only dudes can be winners and losers in life. You either win through social darwinism or female mating selection. This is the hardest pill to swallow but if you think you are blackpilled, you have to accept this bitter truth.
 
I think this is largely artificial due to the (((elites))) forcing feminism down our throat and criminalizing any sort of male supremacist movement. In the past women were widely known to be catty and backstabbing each other. Loyalty is a male virtue.
 
I hate nature and whoever/whatever designed it
 
I think this is largely artificial due to the (((elites))) forcing feminism down our throat and criminalizing any sort of male supremacist movement. In the past women were widely known to be catty and backstabbing each other. Loyalty is a male virtue.
 
And yet foids will still complain about a “boys club”
 
Women do NOT need to compete with other women to reproduce, since they can all be in Chad's harem without an issue.
This is not actually true , awnay I agree with most things in the post
 
This is not actually true , awnay I agree with most things in the post
I base this claim off the fact that only 40% of men ever reproduced, while 80% of women reproduced. This means that many women were sharing the same Chads.

I would like to hear you reasoning.

Even if my claim is indeed, untrue, it doesn't change the fact the female life is inherently more valuable compared to male life since eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap. Both genders have a positive bias towards women since they carry the next generation and their safety must be prioritized.
 
So by nature it's legal to rape a foid?
Don't mind if I do
 
I base this claim off the fact that only 40% of men ever reproduced, while 80% of women reproduced. This means that many women were sharing the same Chads.

I would like to hear you reasoning.

Even if my claim is indeed, untrue, it doesn't change the fact the female life is inherently more valuable compared to male life since eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap. Both genders have a positive bias towards women since they carry the next generation and their safety must be prioritized.
Women compete with each others and even if they could be all in the chad harem it's a better reproductive strategy to putt other women off the harem , so you can reproduce with chad, take the good genes and you son/daughter will mog the shit of others women offspring.(And of course it will cause your genes to spread better)
You cann se that observing women , even them put other women down for a little bit of chad attention, block interaction or inslut.
Especially block interaction with excuses and other shit , they want chad all for them ...of course it's not comparable with male competitiveness , women do that more subdly and indirectly, men do that directly in day light, they will try to beat you, inslut you , just randomly became there is a pussy in front of them .
 
Women compete with each others and even if they could be all in the chad harem it's a better reproductive strategy to putt other women off the harem , so you can reproduce with chad, take the good genes and you son/daughter will mog the shit of others women offspring.(And of course it will cause your genes to spread better)
You cann se that observing women , even them put other women down for a little bit of chad attention, block interaction or inslut.
Especially block interaction with excuses and other shit , they want chad all for them ...of course it's not comparable with male competitiveness , women do that more subdly and indirectly, men do that directly in day light, they will try to beat you, inslut you , just randomly became there is a pussy in front of them .
Excellent explanation. :feelsthink::bigbrain:
 
Our only hope is that it’s social and not biological. White people used to have in-group bias but don’t anymore, while racial minority groups do.

How could men have been in charge for so long while having such a strong out-group preference?
 
In-group preference would make sense for men too. Giving everyone an equal share would obviously benefit betas, but also "successful" red pills who roam the bars for a chance at one night with a used roastie. Maybe someone with multiple virginal wives would be the only one to argue against such a system.. if he truly didn't care about his brothers.. but then every other man just by definition outnumbers them and could remove them easily.
 
In-group preference would make sense for men too. Giving everyone an equal share would obviously benefit betas, but also "successful" red pills who roam the bars for a chance at one night with a used roastie. Maybe someone with multiple virginal wives would be the only one to argue against such a system.. if he truly didn't care about his brothers.. but then every other man just by definition outnumbers them and could remove them easily.
I base this claim off the fact that only 40% of men ever reproduced, while 80% of women reproduced. This means that many women were sharing the same Chads.

I would like to hear you reasoning.

Even if my claim is indeed, untrue, it doesn't change the fact the female life is inherently more valuable compared to male life since eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap. Both genders have a positive bias towards women since they carry the next generation and their safety must be prioritized.
 
@Seahorsecel There is overpopulation and no shortage of wombs in current day society. Maybe if there were nuclear war, would wombs skyrocket in value again and specifically protecting them become relevant. But there is no reason we should live our lives that way.

In the stone age, and middle ages delivery of babies was much different and caused more death, and even if they lived children could die young. But we do not live in that age anymore. We have whole buildings full of obstetricians. The nanny state has made women abandon men, but it has also made them lose the value they have as birthers being scarce.
 
@Seahorsecel There is overpopulation and no shortage of wombs in current day society. Maybe if there were nuclear war, would wombs skyrocket in value again and specifically protecting them become relevant. But there is no reason we should live our lives that way.

In the stone age, and middle ages delivery of babies was much different and caused more death, and even if they lived children could die young. But we do not live in that age anymore. We have whole buildings full of obstetricians. The nanny state has made women abandon men, but it has also made them lose the value they have as birthers being scarce.
The birthrate going down is NOT a good thing, you see when old people get old, they need to be supported financially by youngsters. The fewer young people there are the more pressure on the economy. Ofc, overpopulation is a bad thing too, but that was during the baby boom, when weaker economies could not support the huge wave of toddlers. The ideal birth rate is 2.1 per woman, which is just enough to replace retirees who are quitting the workforce. I agree that the earth is facing slight overpopulation (keyword slight) but the rate that the birthrates are going down is not good at all for society.

There might be plenty of women today but the number of women that are willing to procreate is getting fewer by the day. Unless something like forced breeding is implemented to stop this, the population will see a sharp and deadly decline.

If women's worth is declining, men's worth is declining even more drastically. You see in modern times, manual labor is slowly getting replaced by androids. A woman's sexual value is already millions of times greater than men's. A woman might produce some ~400 eggs in her lifetime, of those at most 10-15 will be used. In stark contrast, a man produces hundreds of millions of sperm per day (Per day!) Even if you account for the roughly 15% fertility rate, men's sexual worth is still drastically lower compared to women.

Regarding women's worth, times have changed but our genetics have largely stayed the same. Men will always prioritize women's safety because that is what our instincts tell us to do.

In times of crisis, (not even a nuclear war, just a regular war) women will always be prioritized because they carry the next generation. The reason governments let women into other countries is in the hope that those women will return when the war is over and birth replacement soldiers. Indeed, it has been the case for many centuries.
 
Go er is my solution
 
@Seahorsecel I can't say what happens to old boomers is my top priority when they have seen through the downfall of marriages and the rise of the cutthroat sexual marketplace. It is not untrue they created their own predicament this way by the downfall of the family, ensuring they themselves don't have enough people to take care of them when they are old!

A woman's worth is declining when it comes to producing offspring, not the ability to attract a partner, or even the ability to keep a partner. There is also something to be said about variability. For example if one man were to father all the offspring in the world, his possible genetic defects would be imprinted on the whole population. As far as that is stupid, then, you could even argue for maximal variety and a reproductive partner for every male.

Men will always prioritize women's safety because that is what our instincts tell us to do.

Once something like evolution or preferences or instincts, or anything at all, are written down in a book, or indeed are thought about, we become aware of them. When we become aware of them, we can change them or attempt to do so and humans have changed much on the globe already indeed.

A more simple explanation would be that since women are not giving intimacy to a vast amount of men, why would they prioritize their safety, or whatever. Even if men had such an instinct lived experience would erode that, as it is with smart people and incels, or in a more slow evolution-like change of the characteristics of the whole male population.
 
@Seahorsecel I can't say what happens to old boomers is my top priority when they have seen through the downfall of marriages and the rise of the cutthroat sexual marketplace. It is not untrue they created their own predicament this way by the downfall of the family, ensuring they themselves don't have enough people to take care of them when they are old!

A woman's worth is declining when it comes to producing offspring, not the ability to attract a partner, or even the ability to keep a partner. There is also something to be said about variability. For example if one man were to father all the offspring in the world, his possible genetic defects would be imprinted on the whole population. As far as that is stupid, then, you could even argue for maximal variety and a reproductive partner for every male.



Once something like evolution or preferences or instincts, or anything at all, are written down in a book, or indeed are thought about, we become aware of them. When we become aware of them, we can change them or attempt to do so and humans have changed much on the globe already indeed.

A more simple explanation would be that since women are not giving intimacy to a vast amount of men, why would they prioritize their safety, or whatever. Even if men had such an instinct lived experience would erode that, as it is with smart people and incels, or in a more slow evolution-like change of the characteristics of the whole male population.


Because men are natural-born cucks. Instinct is hard to override. Most men have already submitted to feminism. We are in a minority.
 

Similar threads

The Foid Slayer
Replies
41
Views
400
_meh
_meh
Eventy
Replies
1
Views
120
Emba
Emba
The Foid Slayer
Replies
7
Views
303
lifesucksandyoudie
lifesucksandyoudie
Kina Hikikomori
Replies
0
Views
75
Kina Hikikomori
Kina Hikikomori

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top