If bad genes would put one sex off, it’d be the party that would have to carry them. Tend them. For decades. You know, the one putting money down if this is a gambling analogy.
Much better not to shack up with the uggo in the first place, which is what women have been doing (avoiding ugly men) since parental set-ups ended. Putting an end to arranged marriages is one of the most eugenic things to ever happen, second only to giving r-types the Pill and other abortfacients.
They’d be most likely to miscarry such children regardless, so a naturalistic fallacy doesn’t apply. This is a reversal of a dysgenic societal pressure with freedom of choice, not a natural pressure. There is a real-world consequence to mating (marrying) such low-quality men that used to be disposed of in endless wars: lower fitness than the parents, a biological death-knell.
There are more bachelors than ever because women aren’t forced to marry anyone who’d support them. If the woman can do it better for herself (given equal opportunities), the man is too poor quality to deserve fecundity. Men purchase rights to a woman’s reproductive decisions with marriage, that’s literally the whole premise. Monogamy had to be imposed to avoid unrest and rebellion against rulers, because it’s better for low-quality males (they actually get to breed and don’t ‘resort’ to rape – not an excuse) and worse for all females, since the natural exclusion (men used to be kicked out of the tribe at age) of the shit-tier doesn’t occur to the gene pool either they or their children and grandchildren will marry into… Naturally, the uggos in question hate this. Inferiority in humans is often connected to misogyny, despite how women are the life-giving, less violent and kinder sex (aliens would view those as objectively superior traits). Happy men don’t have to take anything out on women (displacement) because they are secure.
Narcissism and other personality disorder is always preceded by insecurity.
It reminds me of the bad husbands who complain of sexless marriages. Anyone with an ounce of empathy or life experience with women, happy couples, would laugh at such a concept, since sex in a marriage is a symptom, an outcome, a barometer. As in, they expect not to change but their marriage to improve, magically, for purely selfish reasons. Like it’s them + sex toy, no union, no greater labour required from the ‘master’ of the house. Rarely do the men in such marriages carry just their financial weight (the one entailed in the vows, also why pre-nups are anti-Christian since you swore until death you’d be responsible). Incompetent men used to be screened before they could marry, in the courtship stages interacting with the parents. Now, divorce is common because courtship has been shortened and too superficial. If they can’t be married, successfully, the marriage cannot continue. It’s a job. Rather than correcting their fellow men, to be capable husbands and fathers, they complain about women being shallow (projection). I suppose it’s the r-selected urge to appease other men and avoid real conflict, which they know women are too good to really instigate. Wife-beaters aren’t sneered at from sexism, it’s because a man hitting a woman knows it isn’t a fair fight. He knows his risk of death is almost nil. That’s cowardice.
Damaging the one human you swore to protect? Evil.
Hypocrisy doesn’t work long-term. Only an anti-honour culture like ours would think this.
You don’t deserve shit. Like, does a fat SJW deserve a 6ft model with a 6-pack because she got bullied for years? Exactly, it’s shit, you know it’s bullshit, sit down and stop.
You cannot be entitled to a human. They’re autonomous. An atheist cannot expect a Christian. A slut cannot expect a virgin. You get your level. That’s the red pill – you deserve what you get.
So technically, unequal pairings encourage cheating. Common sense?