Women becoming sexless and childless for life is logical in nature with overpopulation

[WizardofSoda]

Hypergamy imo is also an expression of womens sex drives falling to nothing. An analogy is if you are not hungry you are only going to eat if the food looks really good.. otherwise you have no motivation to eat.

When too many rats live in the same place, the species should have less children, all the way until there is room for expansion of the population again.

Of course there still needs to be some children to continue the species. But the only children they need are from people with top-tier genetics.. aka Chads & Staceys.

Which is exactly what we see happening.

 

[Bangkok or bust]

Cope. It's exposure to top tier hunks on Instagram, sitcoms, movies and magazines that has sky rocketed female standards. The other catalyst is feminism telling all women to only select the best of the best.

Internet is just a vessel that opens up thousands of men a year simping torwards a 5/10 plain jane. Of course she won't choose her league.

A very beautiful 10/10 princess living in a castle during medieval times wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the attention your garden variety 5/10 Becky recieves in just a few weeks on a dating app today.

 

[polar inertia]

It's one way the (((plan))) to reduce population shows. Less people consume less resources. Eugenics isn't a bad thing per se, we just get the shorter end of the stick.

 

[SuccessfulShark]

Your teory might be true however its a quite unlikely since early humans were organized on tribes woman would only fuck in their tribe not outside and they would do this even if there were a lot of other tribes. The real problem is having access to men all over the world. In primitive times if you were fit enough to survive you would probably have sex even if you did it outside the fertile period.

 

[Dregster]

Cope. It's exposure to top tier hunks on Instagram, sitcoms, movies and magazines that has sky rocketed female standards. The other catalyst is feminism telling all women to only select the best of the best.

Internet is just a vessel that opens up thousands of men a year simping torwards a 5/10 plain jane. Of course she won't choose her league.

A very beautiful 10/10 princess living in a castle during medieval times wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the attention your garden variety 5/10 Becky recieves in just a few weeks on a dating app today.

God IQ post

 

[WizardofSoda]

Your teory might be true however its a quite unlikely since early humans were organized on tribes woman would only fuck in their tribe not outside and they would do this even if there were a lot of other tribes. The real problem is having access to men all over the world. In primitive times if you were fit enough to survive you would probably have sex even if you did it outside the fertile period.

In primitive times we couldn't get a good test of my theory because nature tended to keep the population in check anyway, and where there was too many people they could emigrate to other places where people weren't there yet.

Cope. It's exposure to top tier hunks on Instagram, sitcoms, movies and magazines that has sky rocketed female standards. The other catalyst is feminism telling all women to only select the best of the best.

Internet is just a vessel that opens up thousands of men a year simping torwards a 5/10 plain jane. Of course she won't choose her league.

A very beautiful 10/10 princess living in a castle during medieval times wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the attention your garden variety 5/10 Becky recieves in just a few weeks on a dating app today.

The media showing fictional Chads is new.. but one reality of living in a high density area is there is going to be many Chads around.

I'm not saying how this happens.. just that some mechanism must be at work that causes women to lose their sex drive. Your post makes me think that the mechanism is simple, women are only attracted to the top few men, whether its a tribe of 30 people or a tribe of 1 million.

Nature has a beautiful simplicity in its methods. Like one line of code that handles very many factors with one elegant solution.

 

[SuccessfulShark]

In primitive times we couldn't get a good test of my theory because nature tended to keep the population in check anyway, and where there was too many people they could emigrate to other places where people weren't there yet.

Thus you prove my point there's no mehanism because it couldn't be selected for through natural selection

 

[The Zulfigar]

A very beautiful 10/10 princess living in a castle during medieval times wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the attention your garden variety 5/10 Becky recieves in just a few weeks on a dating app today.

She'd have to marry a knight in a helmet whose face she never seen, who turns out to be a trucel

 

[WizardofSoda]

Here is a reason I have so much confidence in my theory. In the Middle Ages through to the 20th century philosophers were noticing that in the big cities the same things we are talking about were happening. Although they weren't as advanced as us as seeing that it was hypergamy that was the root problem.

Women in Europe's big cities had few children, and honestly had sex rarely. The cities were constantly losing people from attrition, as the few births were not making up for the deaths. (which says something in a time before birth control.) A brutal blackpill that even hardcore blackpillers struggle with is that most women are having sex rarely. So how were the cities not depopulating.. well the peasant women of the rural areas they were having enough babies that there was always a surplus of people coming from these rural communities. Back then 80-90%+ of the people lived in small communities so the cities could be repopulated indefinitely.

And now we see the same thing happening all over the developing world. As they urbanize their birth rates plummet. The more densely populated an area the lower the birth rate. See a place like Hong Kong or Cuckapore.

Neckbeard economists try to say its because things in the city are expensive. Yet Hong Kong and Cuckapore are unarguably rich so that argument is wrong.

 

[Deleted member 19546]

This is not true, it’s possible for EVERYONE to reproduce and STILL DECREASE the population.

A 2.3 birthrate is the MINIMUM necessary to maintain a population

if you coupled everybody, and each couple had two children, the population would DECREASE.

Another example, and each couple had only ONE children, the next generation would be HALF the previous.

Sex and relationships should be REGULATED, we could have sustainable and flexible populations where everyone gets the equal right to reproduce.

 

[ReconElement]

Nice analogy

 

[IamJacksBrokenHeart]

good thread