The materialist answer to the age-old question of "what is love?" is to point out that "love" merely is a chain of chemical reactions in the human brain, but what does that imply, exactly? We know that the chemistry in our brains is result of the successful breeding of specimens who had that chemical system in place, that is: it serves an evolutionary adaptive purpose. Humans who felt "love" and cared about this feeling succeeded in breeding more than others that didn't felt or cared for this. But why? And how?
The "why" of love:
The biggest balance of human ecology is between breeding and acquiring resources to support the offspring.
The excessively K-selected human populations (greedy) would spend so much time acquiring resources and restricting breeding that they would not grow.
The excessively r-selected human populations (seedy) would spend so much resources breeding that their offspring would face scarcity and fail to thrive.
A smart balance is therefore needed -- and it is, in fact, the purview of foids.
In times of scarcity, foids would flock towards men with more resources (betas), increasing the fitness of K-selected males.
In times of abundance, foids flock towards men with better sex-appeal (alphas), increasing the fitness of r-selected males.
The foid biological drive is to balance her acquisition of genetic material and resources using as many men as necessary, exchanging them as often as the benefits of the change outweigh the costs and risks involved. Foids may be bad at formal mathematics but they are born actuaries in the sense that their calculation of risks X benefits in her sexual investment portfolio is merciless, precise and unceasing.
Males, on the other hand, would either play by the foids' rules or be outbred. Firstly, a male that would refuse sex would be outbred by those who didn't. Secondly, severely restricting a foid's movement and sexual behavior is expensive, the higher the certainty of paternity desired, the higher the expense incurred.
Children, however would require resources to survive regardless.
Males would have use their resources to support and restrict foids and kids of uncertain paternity, either that or not breed at all. The more resources a male uses to ensure his paternity (keeping a foid in a dungeon) the less resources he would have available to support an additional child or foid. So, there is a delicate balancing between using a man's resources to breed, or using a man's resources to ensure paternity.
The "how" of love:
It is entirely common for foids to switch between alphas and betas many times through her life. A common life story of a foid is marrying "too young" to a beta provider, only to drop him for a good-looking deadbeat Chad and, once the divorce-rape money is gone, seek another beta provider. Another common life story is for a foid to make a kid with a random Chad, then look for a beta provider to breed (or, possibly, cuck) and, once the divorce-rape and child-support are at hand, exchange him for another good-looking Chad. Foids also sometimes switch a Chad for a better Chad, sometimes a Beta for a richer Beta.
The foid sex drive in this life is to instrumentalize their own sexuality as a means to obtain a balance of alpha seed and beta bucks to make and raise their offspring respectively. Through history, a foid that was much too inclined towards the alpha seed strategy would end up a slut whose children no man would support economically; a foid that was much too inclined towards beta bucks strategy would end up a whore (e.g.: a gold-digger) that abdicates her means of improving the genetic fitness of her descendants. Therefore the optimum strategy for a foid is to trike a balance in her quest for alpha seed while also securing beta bucks concurrently.
Males who would abandon "his" kids or "his" foid due to cuckoldry suspicions, would often throw the baby with the bathwater and abandon some of his biological children together with Chad's kids, and/or lose the opportunity to further breed more children with this same foid. The males who would outbreed these suspicious males would be the ones who became psychologically attached to the foids and kids themselves, inebriated with good feelings that led them to blindly ignore all the facts about the nature of this relationship, especially facts pertaining to the foid's behavior.
Conclusion: The "what" of love:
Foids may (tentatively) love neotenous boys -- their sons -- but foids can't love men.
The way foids secure beta bucks is by making beta males "feel loved" so they toil away supporting her and the kids she's made with Chad.
The way beta males deal in life is choosing between:
1-- suicide, celibacy, whoremongering and other sterile pursuits;
2-- or working themselves to an early grave to support a foid while likely getting cucked in the hope that he, instead of Chad, eventually impregnates her.
The only two ways a male would accept this shitty situation are:
3-- he is batshit insane, in which case he would unlikely to be able to work and materially support the foid and the kids.
4-- he is only partially insane, that is, under the effect of a powerful feeling of "love", which anesthetizes him of the pain of his cucked predicament.
The non-Chad males who did not feel inebriated by "love" and made rational choices, did chose #1, which is the least painful choice, but led them to not reproducing at appreciable rates. However, the ones that were inebriated with "love" would evaluate that making choice #2 would not be as painful. This is similar to how junkies can do horrible jobs and even make some good money, which they blow in drugs. Without the drug, this person wouldn't likely remain in such an unpleasant occupation.
Love is, therefore, the drug-like habit that beta males' brains produce endogenously so they can cope with the shitty deal that is materially supporting an ungrateful, annoying, nagging, unsexy and aging foid and some kids of, at best, uncertain paternity.
The "why" of love:
The biggest balance of human ecology is between breeding and acquiring resources to support the offspring.
The excessively K-selected human populations (greedy) would spend so much time acquiring resources and restricting breeding that they would not grow.
The excessively r-selected human populations (seedy) would spend so much resources breeding that their offspring would face scarcity and fail to thrive.
A smart balance is therefore needed -- and it is, in fact, the purview of foids.
In times of scarcity, foids would flock towards men with more resources (betas), increasing the fitness of K-selected males.
In times of abundance, foids flock towards men with better sex-appeal (alphas), increasing the fitness of r-selected males.
The foid biological drive is to balance her acquisition of genetic material and resources using as many men as necessary, exchanging them as often as the benefits of the change outweigh the costs and risks involved. Foids may be bad at formal mathematics but they are born actuaries in the sense that their calculation of risks X benefits in her sexual investment portfolio is merciless, precise and unceasing.
Males, on the other hand, would either play by the foids' rules or be outbred. Firstly, a male that would refuse sex would be outbred by those who didn't. Secondly, severely restricting a foid's movement and sexual behavior is expensive, the higher the certainty of paternity desired, the higher the expense incurred.
Children, however would require resources to survive regardless.
Males would have use their resources to support and restrict foids and kids of uncertain paternity, either that or not breed at all. The more resources a male uses to ensure his paternity (keeping a foid in a dungeon) the less resources he would have available to support an additional child or foid. So, there is a delicate balancing between using a man's resources to breed, or using a man's resources to ensure paternity.
The "how" of love:
It is entirely common for foids to switch between alphas and betas many times through her life. A common life story of a foid is marrying "too young" to a beta provider, only to drop him for a good-looking deadbeat Chad and, once the divorce-rape money is gone, seek another beta provider. Another common life story is for a foid to make a kid with a random Chad, then look for a beta provider to breed (or, possibly, cuck) and, once the divorce-rape and child-support are at hand, exchange him for another good-looking Chad. Foids also sometimes switch a Chad for a better Chad, sometimes a Beta for a richer Beta.
The foid sex drive in this life is to instrumentalize their own sexuality as a means to obtain a balance of alpha seed and beta bucks to make and raise their offspring respectively. Through history, a foid that was much too inclined towards the alpha seed strategy would end up a slut whose children no man would support economically; a foid that was much too inclined towards beta bucks strategy would end up a whore (e.g.: a gold-digger) that abdicates her means of improving the genetic fitness of her descendants. Therefore the optimum strategy for a foid is to trike a balance in her quest for alpha seed while also securing beta bucks concurrently.
Males who would abandon "his" kids or "his" foid due to cuckoldry suspicions, would often throw the baby with the bathwater and abandon some of his biological children together with Chad's kids, and/or lose the opportunity to further breed more children with this same foid. The males who would outbreed these suspicious males would be the ones who became psychologically attached to the foids and kids themselves, inebriated with good feelings that led them to blindly ignore all the facts about the nature of this relationship, especially facts pertaining to the foid's behavior.
Conclusion: The "what" of love:
Foids may (tentatively) love neotenous boys -- their sons -- but foids can't love men.
The way foids secure beta bucks is by making beta males "feel loved" so they toil away supporting her and the kids she's made with Chad.
The way beta males deal in life is choosing between:
1-- suicide, celibacy, whoremongering and other sterile pursuits;
2-- or working themselves to an early grave to support a foid while likely getting cucked in the hope that he, instead of Chad, eventually impregnates her.
The only two ways a male would accept this shitty situation are:
3-- he is batshit insane, in which case he would unlikely to be able to work and materially support the foid and the kids.
4-- he is only partially insane, that is, under the effect of a powerful feeling of "love", which anesthetizes him of the pain of his cucked predicament.
The non-Chad males who did not feel inebriated by "love" and made rational choices, did chose #1, which is the least painful choice, but led them to not reproducing at appreciable rates. However, the ones that were inebriated with "love" would evaluate that making choice #2 would not be as painful. This is similar to how junkies can do horrible jobs and even make some good money, which they blow in drugs. Without the drug, this person wouldn't likely remain in such an unpleasant occupation.
Love is, therefore, the drug-like habit that beta males' brains produce endogenously so they can cope with the shitty deal that is materially supporting an ungrateful, annoying, nagging, unsexy and aging foid and some kids of, at best, uncertain paternity.
Last edited:
