Human history was polyandry

Most women got their top choice. If a woman has her pick of the men, that’s polyandry.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/24/women-men-dna-human-gene-pool

So, sure, genetically polygamy has a long history… most men would hate that system though.

But eggs (and the carrier) are expensive, sperm is worthless.

SEXUAL SELECTION IS EUGENIC.

That is not a bad thing. Selecting out the weak are the ones whose offspring wouldn’t have survived long anyway. Humanity would’ve died out if they didn’t choose the healthy and civilized.

By low IQ alone, a sizable number of men should be rejected.

Insufficient men existed genetically for so-called hypergamy, a marriage detail of the 20th century where rich men preferred beauty in women (regardless of background, given the finite supply in their own class, they had to marry down) which has NOT continued into this one (aka not how evolution works). The social phenomena of hypergamy is why male sexual selection fails, it’s dysgenic, they fuck down and over generations, ruin their bloodline because they don’t have any decent standards (dating studies reinforce this). They prefer a pair of marginally nicer tits over quality descendants (see IQ/class studies, regression to the mean) who actually continue to breed (so their investment was not wasted).

To this day, white women are least likely to miscegenate, and yet men, knowing the ruin that follows, are somehow more open (sexually desperate) to the prospect. This is why women are the prudent, selecting sex, the peahens assessing the tail feathers. It’s the only system that works intergenerationally.

Monogamy is still the best course in my opinion (or look at the Third Worlds with too many men and not enough war falling into sewer-exploding chaos), the way humans have evolved in civilization (not like other primates) and it’s definitely the best course for men.

You know, mathematically.

Men save time picking a good woman, impressing a vast sample size of ONE and then mate guarding. Their instincts arise from ancestors’ success with this. Parental attachment becomes secure and that leads to stable child development e.g. later menarche, and then improves odds of grandchildren, etc… etc.

[Being a sterile manwhore means nothing in evolution.]

This isn’t about man feelings, thank you. It’s as impersonal as genetics.

From here on out, no normie filter.

You have been warned.

Much is written by foolish men on the longer technical male fertility window, omitting quality studies, but what they fail to notice is how the vast majority of men would’ve been dead by middle age (mid-30s) thanks to rites of passage, crime, war and disease. The best quality men had to be rewarded for surviving somehow.

They bring up wolf packs (one, monogamous alpha pair) and lion prides (most males are dead) without the slightest glimmer of self-awareness.

EVOLUTION IS A HIERARCHY, IDJITS.

The cuck thing intrigued women because it seemed like quality men were getting their act together by refusing to support the weak ones any longer, letting the entitled leeches of society e.g. deadbeats, shrivel up without the taxpayer teat. It’s more a promise. Why did women vote for Trump? ACTION.

Hillary wanted to import weak, cowardly men to flood their already swelling domestic angry ranks of would-be rapists and murderers.

Women didn’t vote for her. Shocker.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/12/17/americas-stop-hitting-yourself/

“If I hated American men and wanted their legacy to die out, I’d convince them women are like the Jewish Lilith and never to marry or have kids (both of which extend male lifespan and joy).”

Anyone who falls for it deserves to die out.

Women didn’t talk about #killallmen because, well, we kill most of them by genetic suicide anyway. What’s there to say?

Why was this such a huge hit? Listen.

He didn’t think she was good enough, so she rejects him. Now he’s alone.

She wanted to invest, he didn’t. Now he can’t find equivalent offers.

What was she supposed to do, sit around and pine while her ovaries dried up? He had at least three years! That’s three decades in ovary time! Shit or get off the pot, man.

It’s like passing up on a Ferrari because it’s the wrong colour. Men are not passive.

[Also why fronting and negging do not work. Sir, there is a LINE. Please move over so the next guy can talk. You see this in clubs.]

Men get confused since women have options – it’s like offering BBQ to a vegan or a Prius to a Trump supporter, we don’t want those options.

We’d rather have NOTHING.

What’s worse for men – there’s no such thing as “alpha” or there is, and you aren’t one?

So why don’t women talk about it?

We do, you don’t hear it.

At no point did Jesus say “and thus every man is entitled to a waifu” but a lot of men heard it.

The perfect woman of proverbs 31 wears purple silks to make her husband look good but they point to the vain line in another section about pearl braids their husband can’t afford. The problem there isn’t jewelry and fashion, it’s keeping up with the Joneses instead of being a good wife. If you can be a good wife first, roll on the pearls.

Even under so-called polygyny, the women get to choose to marry – the best man, rejecting N-1 of males.

Again, basic maths.

However, this was in there:

I’m sure they forgot.

To be friendzoned, you must actually be friends.

Most people are acquaintances.

Hey guys, I am very smart for saying this but – water is wet?

Why are misogynists so common and misandrists so rare?

To this day, I haven’t seen a misandrist go on a murder spree.

Thousands of years and counting. They have cause, look at crime stats.

What are they doing in revenge? You don’t see a future together? Funny, so does she.

Imagine if women sent an influx of vag pics to Milo. It looks like an audition.

Why do we ‘slut shame’? Fine, I’ll humour you. They don’t choose good men, allow bad behaviour that inconveniences everyone and add shit to the gene pool. Nobody wants shit in their pool.

You let the men think they run everything while killing off the ones who disrespect you.

And that’s why you are here.

The top segment of men support this, by the way, roll on Patriarchy, time of oddly fatal male labour? Abortion only for rape babies? Lots and lots of ground war? Why did Marx point out class war as crushing men? Men are their own worst enemy.

Try to deny it to yourself with each passing year. Women win, just accept it and maybe you can share in it.

Why do “male feminists” turn out to be secretly misogynist the whole time?
Why do they have a reputation for rejection?

This is why weaker men wanted to prevent women from deciding for themselves who to marry.

Evolution is brutal and cannot abide weakness. Mother Nature.

Your ancestors were the least misogynistic of the bunch, it’s selective breeding like domesticating dogs. And you think, to keep women in line and producing for society, being the exception will help you? Ask Elliot how that went. Product of hypergamy Elliot. Angry, mongrel Elliot, who blamed women instead of his father who didn’t want a white son. Cannon fodder in saner times. Not heir material. Why did he preferentially stab Asian males?

Misogynists hate women – but they hate men even more. Most psychopaths are misogynists, most psychopaths are men, most homicide victims are….. ?

Did ya guess? It’s men. If only there were a clever way for nature to resolve this problem. To produce a… civilization?

They don’t become crazy because they’re bachelors, they are bachelors because they are crazy.

If women are crazy, why want them?

As mentioned here and elsewhere, misogyny is a known trait of the inferior male.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/07/24/link-inferiority-the-opposite-of-genius/

Good men don’t despise femininity. Rich people don’t hate the banks.

If you had to choose a man to invest in, would you choose a protector or abuser?

Good men use the death penalty to remove the scum from the gene pool, women use passivity with not a drop of blood spilled and each generation progressively more peaceful. Until the weak men imported more dregs out of spite. What do they salivate over? Men being killed in terror attacks, no valor and women being raped, no choice.

That is the omega.

Omega females want pretty women to have ugly, stupid or mud babies. You can’t be out-competed by a better bloodline that doesn’t exist. Again, spite is evil. Wrath is a deadly sin.

That picture needs two fewer dogs and two more children. Ban pets and the white birth rate would skyrocket.

Remember, Muslims hate dogs? Pattern recognition is a skill.

Why in times of war do women say of men in praise “he was a good man, he didn’t deserve to die”, what does that imply?

No, Peterson, no

I tried watching some basic videos I’d never normally click on as a test.
Topics I knew from reading and speaking to experts.
This was the average level of offender. Little scientism neat stories there.

Raises no eyebrows with the Pitbull IQ host who talks too much.

LISTEN AND BELIEVE.

ANYTHING I LIKE IS EVOLUTION.

What is free will, the law or the naturalistic fallacy?

This is him without prep, he only sounds smart when he’s prepared for the conversations.

Jordan Peterson either thinks he’s smarter than he is (read more) or he’s trolling internet intellectuals for shekels, knowing they won’t look it up because who cares about the truth? I bet 2.

He is not an evobio guy, you’d be better off asking Richard Dawkins!
Someone, on Twitter! Please!

The men wouldn’t have been allowed close enough to GET rejected.
Society invented courting and bachelorhood to keep order, once all males were allowed to survive for labour.

Hypergamy doesn’t even mean what these people think, it’s a marriage construct. Nothing to do with sex, especially sterile sex. Biology of fertility and children (evolution) doesn’t apply to the infertile or sterile. STDs don’t apply to monks for the same reason. Where do they get it???

Marriage construct because marriage is how you access resources? Duh?

We have twice as many female ancestors because 1. they did less stupid things, 2. they were more connected to tribe, 3. no intersexual competition that ends in death, 4. no survival based rite of passage (throwing them out when of age) and 5. no need to display to the opposite sex. Most men would have died beforehand or been killed in the attempt to access them long before social rejection was possible. Tribes were NOT PC. There was NO benefit of the doubt, especially for a stranger trying to access the nubile, do not be dense. Men were known to be rapists and that is why rape developed as a strategy, the losers who wouldn’t be permitted mating opportunities any other way. The contempt for everyone in that. Our disgust is a wholesale rejection of our being.

This age is incredibly eugenic because the rapist types are usually sterile/frigid/impotent, pick a term, the kids don’t breed/are aborted or the woman is on the Pill. This is the most eugenic time period in living memory, and in all of human history. It’s a cleansing. Trust Malthus to take out the trash that appears successful in false conditions (socialism). Liberals aren’t even breeding, smart ones!

He’ll never ever talk about that. He would drag his raw balls over broken glass first.

Women would get a say, but more the parents. It wasn’t just the father. Brothers might take the father’s place, say, for a fight, but the mother held sway over the brothers. Experience and blood connection counted.

Mother Nature is a eugenicist. It’s about quality and survival.

Human genocide and rape after war aren’t accounted for either, despite occurring in chimps so he does know, I can assure you. Plenty of men are poor quality, stop stroking their cock Peterson. We aren’t “meant to” evolve for anything, ask JF, a biologist. It’s such a romantic view? What a strawman. Courtly love is recent you dumb fuck? Like I could disprove that with wikipedia, it’s mostly a French thing too, what, did nobody else evolve? Was the memo to the whole species written in Frog?

The sneaky fucker thing is rape because they have to present themselves dishonestly, knowing their poor quality. They want to force acceptance. You’ll always have the stupid ones as exception thinking it’s about body language or some shit like “alpha dominance” *cough* but even they know to hide, it’s instinct and hardly a social thing, they would sneak into the tribe once the real men were away hunting and the females were vulnerable. They rarely interacted with the men. They’d also be deadbeats after any rape, classic r-type. A male just wanting sex and no investment is not viable, in society, to society, to women or in biology.

This is painful to watch.

Mammals are different. Harlow’s monkeys?

Taking a real thing, interesting and twisting it into shit. It’s like modern art with science. I hope you’re not paying this man.

Of course heroes exist but they hardly bred more than average, Genghis Khan was a rapist. This is known. The shitty males weren’t romancing themselves with stories, what are you on, Jordan? What are you smoking?

We tell stories about bad people far more than good ones. Fairy tales? Old ones?

Beta male has three meanings

  1. shit internet one, means nothing. Used here.
  2. Evobio, deference but not sexual, social with sometimes sexual outcomes, it’s seen in the military and chosen, earned. Royalty’s ancestors were at some point battle victors.
  3. Sexual attractiveness, subpar but chosen nonetheless. This is sometimes used to refer to parents, a little inaccurately. Evolutionally, breeders win. All parents are in the running for alpha but it’s based on quality. Beta bux is not true, as I’ve linked to studies before. Parental Investment shows that doting fathers have better odds than the sneaky fuckers who call themselves alpha but are truly deadbeats. You could relate it to masculinity but it isn’t bravado or aggression, those are low class status signals to get attention. Masculinity has always been the Patriarch, the father figure who stays and is a good man. Greece fell because Zeus fucked around, pagans are scrubbers.

Male feminists (SJWs) have many issues, I cannot list them all here.

They hate themselves, it needn’t be about the women, that’s why they often wanna become women. Trying to gain trust based on lies is the act of a sexual predator, which most douchebags viewing this would call alpha “game” (the game is lying) because they believe all the tropes about cavemen in cartoons, when rapists were brained with a rock (yes, I agree, let’s do that again). You are not smarter than them larping Johnny Bravo. Did anyone respect him?

Men sluttier than women

Nobody is ‘lying’ either. Learn to read the research, not the commentary feed from some butthurt bloke. The lie scales are applied to both sexes (independent variables) in a given study. That is how they are constructed, literally. For comparison’s sake aka the study, it holds.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/sexual-health-and-advice/8958520/Average-man-has-9-sexual-partners-in-lifetime-women-have-4.html

Why the discrepancy? you wisely ask.

There are fewer female sluts than male, but they put out a lot more per…. ahem, head.

cute wink

Result? Men gain more ‘experience’, to put it politely.

Now, a little theory…

Remember, this studies frequency of switching. The cause can be traced back via IV to frequency of sex acts too, as the two variables are intertwined (men and women). Otherwise, logically, and sexual congress requiring one male and one female, you would expect even results e.g. men 5, women 5. Men are switching between more women, as you can see from their mean, but they are switching among the same pool of women, necessarily, whereas the total of females is much lower. The average female switches partner less, yes, but what type is the average woman? …

Told you promiscuity, the act, was the problem, and male in face. If you insist on blaming one sex, they’re at the centre of anything sexual, online and off.

If you have data, go ahead and prove me wrong, manwhores.

This is as silly as arguing cuckoldry in the age of DNA testing.

In short, this suggests, pending further results, that men use and use up a lower quality of woman before trading up socially to their final partner. Kinda like a good hand to hold in blackjack. To have and to hold.. They crave the social security like women crave the sexual kind. Hypergamy is a mass neurosis of projection, to anyone who can read.

You don’t see large groups of women on the prowl, versus Pull Nights ( lads on the pull). [SATC is fiction, globally and historically.]

Pool* = sample, arguably the SMP in practice.
Female mean = the total available females in theory, e.g. including the married, the aged, the ill and the celibate.
You see the issue? They’re all lumped together, the data isn’t stratified correctly. Deliberately.
Even a bar chart based on partner count or sexual frequency in a week would be illuminating.
However, the number of count for slutty males must be even higher, because as not-practicing women hold down the slutty average, the number of non-practicing men hold down the manwhore mean too.

dean winchester supernatural evil smirk lol laughing amused

Isn’t science fun?

This accurately traces the perils of lumping the sexes in together, obscuring mating patterns which crossover i.e. promiscuity. Further data computation was required to assess this question.

Obviously none of this data includes rape or other sexual crimes.
Accusing all men of being rapists is exactly as stupid as accusing all women of being whores. They’re both over-reactions designed to defame the opposite sex’s reputation from different sides (take/be taken, force/choose). Instead it cleverly plays on an old question Can a whore be raped?

Nobody mentions this. So I have to.

Shocker: Rich women don’t want gold diggers either

Note the sad MGTOW comments justifying their failure with women as the fault OF women and extolling Thai brides.

http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/640467/Rich-decline-date-men-earn-less-good-looking-dating

They can’t read.

They surveyed rich women and tested for shallowness. The women weren’t shallow, they didn’t want a handsome man if he failed as a provider, as a man, knowing looks fade anyway.
Rich people are acutely aware of gold diggers, of course rich women were raised to avoid men with nothing to offer. (You didn’t earn your looks).

Salary is often a reliable proxy for intelligence. If you’re somewhat intelligent, you should be able to make more money than average. This isn’t hard to understand. Higher IQs contribute more to the economy. It’s a reliable indicator.

that's enough stop please karen will and grace

The only thing they proved is the importance of class. Idiotic Americans.
You don’t get to play out of your league as a man. How is that worth bragging about as a mark of superiority? Oh, these rich women would’ve rejected you for having nothing to offer while you coast on looks, aren’t they terrible? Women have a narrow window but not by much, one or two levels higher, tops.

Their Muh Hypergamy doesn’t apply when the woman is more valuable, does it, dipshits?
The manosphere hypergamy is not what the studies show, the true meaning of the term requires marriage, and the studies also show hypergamy doesn’t apply to the 21st century, numbers dropped like a rock. If hypergamy were this evil thing giving women all the power, you’d expect they’d know this. Are they happy? Never.

looking for a fuck to give loki thor 2

I’ve met happier feminists than these guys.
Now it’s just getting sad.

Link: Assortative mating and class

http://www.unz.com/jman/the-son-becomes-the-father/

Hardly any social mobility. No hypogamy. No hypergamy (the small-scale sociology theory seems to be wrong over many generations when you look at the genetics). I wasn’t expecting that. It shows psychology has its limits too, when they’re looking in the wrong place (teachers) and asking the wrong questions (how valuable is an education?).

What we see is clearly an argument for sexually selective Leagues. (Bear in mind, it would count MMV as well as SMV). It seems to be mostly genes.

The idea that this transmission of status over time has been as Clark found it squares well with another facet I discuss frequently on this blog: the fact that parenting doesn’t have much of a lasting effect on children’s outcomes.

Although parenting can let the team down if it’s atrocious (i.e. modern) and without instinct. But it seems later generations might have hope of regaining lost ground. Presumably there’s regression to mean in parenting quality, and since most people are totally forgotten by the 4th generation it’s no wonder we see no effect.

The interesting thing is that even the people who take me seriously on this point still believe that there’s something their efforts can do, beyond keeping their children fed, clothed, clean, and cognizant of the basic ways of the world. Steven Sailer frequently suggests that the outcome of poorer children, especially those of color (mostly Hispanics) would improve if they had fewer of them, and hence could afford to invest more in each, despite the fact that this doesn’t hold up in adoption studies.

It’s an oxytocin-based instinct, but it only seems that the majority of the affectionate instinct actually needs to be applied to the spouse (in both directions) to maintain the stability for the children. Another reason divorced parents are awful. Also, I wonder whether this would change the minds of any cuckolds saying they ‘don’t mind’ if a child isn’t theirs, as long as they raise them? This applies to women raising the children of former wives too.

This study found that “cultural transmission” (i.e., from parents) couldn’t explain the pattern seen in children (indeed, the parent-child correlation was negative once you removed heredity). The non-parental environment explained the variance, suggesting that other influences, such as peers, likely explain the results.

Why else do you think mothers care so much about who their child has for friends?
It can predict crime, drug use and all sorts (peer pressure).

This issue squares the matter with Gregory Clark’s results. That is, when you consider other facets, education per se doesn’t seem to mean much in the end. Apparently, you can’t teach moxie. This is revealed by the fact that every trait “going in” that shapes a person (and should be relevant to educational attainment) reliably shows absolutely no shared environment impact.

The Middle Class fallacy. Grit and resilience come into it too (the upper class have it, the middle class despise it).
You could put little Tarquin in the best school to ever exist, it won’t make him a genius.

…including one’s work preferences and interests, the presence or absence of mental disorders, and including the features of a person we think of as “character.” Parents leave no lasting effect on any of it, aside from what they bequeath to their children genetically….

The upper class try to teach their children life skills like grit too.
The middle class assumes it will just happen. Guess who wins.
We’ve all heard comparisons of our character or habits to deceased family members, right?
I would like to see hobbies compared genetically because birth order and sibling rivalry supposedly make children opt into different ones despite genetic similarity.

Who you choose to have children with is the most important decision of your entire life. No pressure. 

Indeed, when we consider the effect of measurement error (adding it to the heritability estimate and to the somewhat nonsensical negative gene-environment correlation values), the heritability of political attitudes and social values skyrockets, being upwards of 85% (74%) for views towards pornography in women (men). The heritability of overall political orientation, when accounting for measurement error, teeters on 100%!

Liberals and conservatives will be battling for a long time to come.

Bodes well for r/K.
I think this is why K-types seem so betrayed when divorced. Total speculation. I’m sure a lot of spouses cheated on would like to stone the 3rd party responsible. Religion is a good excuse to kill the competition.

(Hence the “shared environment” ≠ “all environment.”)

That needs to be made clear for the all  would-be sociologists.

But that’s all OK, yes? The whole point of education is to “shape” the raw individual beyond his/her genetic predilection, right? Wrong.

Education cannot change potential, it can only improve performance up to the ceiling OF potential, how many times do I have to say this?

The problem is that everything that comes out, the adultout comes, shows a shared environment impact that is also zero.

If your parents were screw-ups and couldn’t hold a marriage together, you’ll probably be a screw-up too. It’s the circle of life.

OK, so you might be willing to accept that you can’t shape your child’s personality or values. You can’t control his major life outcomes. You can’t even control how much money he will go on to earn. But surely you can do something useful, like leave your children a lifetime of happiness, right? After all, I believe, and advise, that a parent’s key duty, after ensuring that their children grow up healthy and safe, is to ensure that each has a happy childhood. Surely that must count for something, too,? It does, in the form of fond memories of childhood.

This is so brutal. So redpill.
The lesson is choose your spouse wisely and once you’ve got them, stick with them. You can’t choose your own genetic profile, but you can damn well choose theirs! (This is why women are so selective).

One’s lifetime of happiness boils down to genes and to the fickleness of luck.

yes lestat dancing happy cheery morbid black comedy

I’m one of the lucky people who can be contented in a shed.
It’s like when I was told Follow your Dreams and the money will follow! I was always like ‘but if you are happy, why do you still need the money to justify your decision?’, that art teacher did not like me, not one bit. School really is a prison but that’s news to nobody, frankly. You’re there to do a thing (pass grades) and finally they grant your release. Might as well game the system and learn other, more useful things with their resources while you’re there.

He will be who he will be. It’s only my job to help him get there, and pass on the legacies of all those who came before him. I did all I could do: I married well. Beyond that it’s in the hands of “fate”.

That’s the healthy parental attitude, not the Trophy Child, as I call them, where they need something to brag about like it’s a prize-winning pet or the Dead Dreams Model where the child is pressured to do what the parent wishes they had (a whole career, not little stuff).

The vagaries of the circumstances no doubt imbued good fortune on some and dashed the success of many others.

Whether your society (born into) was just and meritocratic, I’d wager.

But through it all, the thing that is at the root of continuity – DNA – remained the active ingredient to propagate lineages in their respective places through out the ages.
It is as it was said in the Richard Donner Superman films: “The son becomes the father, and father becomes the son.

Superman quotes now? Epic.

Shocker as low time pref predicts ability to maintain relationships

Proxy studied: credit score.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2015/10/07/relationshipstrategies/you-may-want-to-add-this-to-your-online-profile/

Commitment = ability to choose the long term over the short term.

What a shock.
Also a proxy for class. (Class similarity predicts longevity too, another surprise considering assortative mating).

“Credit scores are widely used in a variety of contexts as an indicator of reliability and ability to honor and maintain a broad range of commitments, such as rental and employment relationships, not just those involving debt and credit.”

Time preeeeeeeference.

The honor is IN the maintenance. Sure, I guess you married her with the best intentions, but that doesn’t change the fact you slept with the secretary, you know?

We know that impulsivity predicts poor relationship skills, and low credit scores may reflect impulsive spending behavior. In fact, one of the primary characteristics of Dark Triad males is impulsivity. (Jonason & Tost, 2010; Jones & Paulhus, 2011).

What matters here isn’t the brevity of their relationships (which might be agreed upon) as much as the fact they cannot maintain them. It isn’t an ability in their repertoire. They fall short, they fail.

Another study found that “Individuals who have intercourse in the context of hookups are differentiated by high impulsivity, low concern for personal safety, low dependency, their erotic approach to relationships and an avoidant attachment style.” (Paul, McManus and Hayes, 1999)

Anything other than secure attachment style is relationship hell for the other party. They’re afraid of emotional intimacy (and commitment, which is like emotional prison for them because of it).

Clearly, the inability to defer gratification through saving should be a massive red flag.

I love how attention whores brag about their shitty relationship skills. They wouldn’t do that with any other ability, like driving. Maybe maths, since these people aren’t especially bright. Stupid people tend to pair off again. Most couple’s fights are over money (generally, the man’s job, I should point out).

And blogging (public!) about a woman’s sex life without her permission is about as bad as posting a guy’s small penis selfie to his boss and colleagues: http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2015/09/28/politics-and-feminism/a-normal-male-reproductive-strategy/ These are the same type who’ll go on about a woman’s reputation and how important it is, totally flouting the trust placed in them (they’d make such wonderful husbands, that 4 and 5) to have a sexual connection.

The male will compromise his standards for short-term mating, but not abandon them altogether. He attempts to maximize quality given the tradeoffs required by his overall goals.

Furthermore, the vast majority of men want to marry. They seek a monogamous lifelong partner. Research shows that when asked how many sexual partners a man wants in the next five years, the median answer is 1. (See the research HERE.) Marriage is by far the most successful way for men to pass on their genes.

Actually, the masculinity of what was called ‘sexual congress’ was bound up in the virility of the Pagan Gods. It was said The embrace of a god is never sterile or some such. It had nothing to do with the sex act itself. A man who has sex with 3 women and gets 2 pregnant is batting 66% reproductive recombination average. Hell, a virgin who marries and has children with one woman has a 100% success rate. A man who beds 500 women and bears no heirs (the male incentive, legacy) is a genetic failure. A man who beds every single, fertile woman on the planet with no heirs is judged impotent (not the same as infertility originally, because he could physically have children but the problem was …psychological). It used to be grounds for divorce if a man refused or didn’t want children with his wife, in a time when women didn’t have much going for them under Patriarchy (which always sides with the K-selected legacy producers aka future taxpayers). Everyone has a personal fertility rate, and in their heart of hearts, most of us don’t want to be genetic suicides.

This is why humans are monogamous. It guarantees not only paternity, but male virility (when in the state of nature, the baby or the mother would die or be killed/aborted without his protection). Evolutionary strategies around fitness ONLY APPLY WHERE THE PEOPLE INVOLVED REPRODUCE. It’s like if I applied the archeology of dinosaurs to the Bible, it’s embarrassing, please stop. Evobio comes down to maths, much like game theory. Think of all the sterile sex going on. You think Evolution counts that? It’s a blip in the history of mankind, like men who couldn’t get it up. Nature is culling those people. They are self-selecting OUT of the gene pool. Let them! 

The topic of hypergamy again. ~big sigh~

Oh, now you guys finally give a shit about sociology? Now you think it’s real? Why isn’t it part of the subject called sexology then, genius? What’s the socio- in sociosexual hierarchy all about? They aren’t the same or the topics would be merged. Stop misusing the words again, Christ on a bike, read a book. A textbook. Or make up your own words instead of poaching a thing the means the exact opposite of what you’re trying to prove.

Expecting a woman not to care about social status (read; keeping her safe) is like a fat feminist expecting Ryan Gosling (he’s popular, right?) not to care about physical attraction (read: to get it up). See? It all fits. Quit buying into the undercurrent Narrative that the sexes are meant to be the same. Is/Ought is a guillotine that murders reason. If they were meant to be the same, evolutionally, then sexual dimorphism in our species wouldn’t have happened.

The drop of arranged marriages is actually nixing marriages of social advantage.

…Today most people marry their approximate social equals, and in much of the world hypergamy is…in slow decline.

This is bad for men. The same men who tried to leverage their status (often inherited) into a better quality of wife (works both ways, don’t it?). And patriarchs (fathers) who would only give away their property (daughter) for the best price?
Which sex is more likely to ‘trade up’ (ugly term) after marriage? Clue: which sex had practically all the active profiles on Ashley Madison?

Which one usually has the problem maintaining their end of the relationship (up to marriage vows)?

…Roughly 10-20% of both men and women are promiscuous, though the most promiscuous men are more promiscuous than the most promiscuous women. (Research HERE.)

They believe it doesn’t affect their future prospects (it does with K-women aka wife material).

Futhermore, the opposite of hypergamy is hypogamy, which simply means that men tend to marry down. As hypergamy has declined with assortive mating and the egalitarian marriage, so has hypogamy. The marriage and divorce statistics contradict any notion of hypergamy as guiding female choices today….

I quibble with this when it comes to divorce settlements but the general point is true.

Here are the reproductive strategies [DS: that is not a moral license] Jared Rutledge and Jacob Owens employed to get sex:

Rape

Here’s an example from one of their podcasts (H/T: Wj):

Young Jay (Jacob), after describing a woman as manipulative:

It was really fun cuz we had sex in the shower. Hospital sex is weird! And when she is drugged, it’s strange, but it’s really cool.

Papa Jay (Jared): Could she give consent?

Young Jay: Uh-oh! (Laughter)

Papa Jay: You might have violated some California laws.

Young Jay: That is mah bad. That is mah bad.

Papa Jay: Good thing we don’t live in California. (Much laughter.) 

Projection. Scum. I bet he thinks it’s rape when a man is drunk though.

For the record, the mother of the patient, referred to as “A.” is planning to bring charges against her daughter’s rapist.

Physical Abuse

Jared admits to “wailing on a woman with a belt” and “gagging her with my dick.”

Holistic Game also tweeted this dating advice: “Bitches get stitches.”

See it all HERE.

It’s like they’re doing the jury’s job for them.
See, the problem with jokes is that some total retard is going to do it, thinking you were serious. And that could count as incitement if it’s on a somewhat serious platform like a blog, certainly in Europe. These twits don’t bother to check the laws of the countries they travel to as sex tourists and complain when they get done.

No one is faulting the men for promiscuity. With the exception of the hospital patient, the women described appear to have consented to sexual relations with Rutledge and Owens.

It’s freedom of association. They were literally two-faced (the common stereotype I have no doubt they accuse of women). I doubt those women would’ve done if they had known the other side and that’s why the blogs didn’t use their real names (what social proofing, are they doing something to be ashamed of?). At least guys like Roosh have the balls to use their real name (although he lies about it while travelling which would beg legal questions about consent). A future question on the scene might be “are you a fuckboi or PUA”? for legal protection in case he turns out to be (you laugh but it could happen, nobody likes misrepresentation and those cases are pretty cut and dried).

I. Of the 50 women Rutledge had sex with, only 3 qualified as “carousel riders.”

He found that the rest were seeking monogamous relationships, in some cases agreeing to casual sex in order to get that. He exploited that opportunity.

See what I mean?
That right there is a social contract, folks.

oh shit damn fuck hell no give up dean winchester shrug

The rest is quite pathetic.

“…Women want to be swept up in an emotional whirlwind, and the more I tried to keep my “Alpha cool” the more they responded with flakiness or coldness.”

I know teenage boys with more common sense. “If I don’t show I like her – she’ll think I don’t like her!” actual quote, I was very proud of that one.

They assume you’re politely fading them out. They tend to follow. And being honest, did either look Alpha? Come on. SMV-wise. Come on.

On the manosphere;

“There’s a tremendous amount of ego, and a lot of anonymity.

…They didn’t hear the hurt, they didn’t see my mom cry when she learned how many people I’ve had sex with. They don’t see what the judgmentalism they are still engaging in did to myself and other people.

I am not going to be on my deathbed having engaged in these kinds of judgments anymore, this breaking people down into their component parts. [DS: breaking people down and using their broken-ness to manipulate what you want out of them, leaving them broken – those are the actions of a sociopath] It’s unhealthy for me, and it causes irreparable and widespread damage to other people.”

She knows she raised a scumbag. She sounds like a nice woman and he let her down (and by extension, her sex, which she also let down by producing and raising him, yes women think like that, on that scale of complexity). It’s little better than a drug problem, with a similar rate of disease. If you are aware enough to see the societal decay, you have a civilian duty to never contribute to it, maybe try to repair it. Social problems happen in shockwaves. Never be the rock.

Enjoying the decline is about not causing undue pain to yourself – or anyone else.

This article ends badly, the red-pill isn’t twisted, this information used to be considered Common Sense (e.g. women and men are different creatures) and should form a reaction/reminder to unrealistic PC lessons. A balm to the bruise. Twisted people are using it as a shield to hide behind and hide their abuses of the human condition we all share. I’ve written here this has become a ‘disturbing trend’ and one we here blogging might become known for.

Ironically, real sociopaths with low time preference (called ‘successful’) are almost always married, and quite happily. They slot right into the role, overjoyed to fit in for the first time ever and have a safe outlet for their personal doubts. Those men are not sadists and their wives love them. They make good husbands.

Link: Amazon Women and why men exist

http://masculineprinciple.blogspot.ca/2015/03/the-amazon-women-science-of-why-males.html

Mostly correct but I must point out the hypergamy thing is bullshit. Hypergamy is based on a higher social status of (in the manosphere) men that women try to borrow or steal. This tries to argue it’s still hypergamy when women have the high social value. WTF? That makes the opposite of sense.

Sorry, no.

wrong dr house urgh shut up idiots

Hypergamy is a social science concept based in social status. It isn’t sexual. It isn’t genetic. Please stop.
It’s like the manosphere is doing a version of that feminist thing where they keep adding to the definition of rape when it suits them. Please stop and use another word for that thing.

I won’t leave you without explanation for replacement.

Babies are parasites to the mother’s body. Baby boys are worse. They are an immunological risk. The mother already suffers microchimerism of the brain and other safeguards are in place to prevent further damage or the reverse, miscarrying/naturally aborting all males to protect the mother fully, which would effectively kill off the species.

It’s a balancing act.

Stop trying to find a winner.

Quick lesson on evolution:

The Y chromosome is younger. Look it up (see n.b.). The Bible is wrong. Women came first. We were self-fertilizing (parthenogenesis) as a simpler asexual species. Much later, we became sexually reproductive as a species, diverging into a sexually dimorphic male and female, because it allowed for a greater genetic diversity and vigour (see: all sex differences) as a whole developed species allowing for faster evolution although it produces differing traits in each sex (specialization) for optimum results.

n.b.

From wikipedia as a starting point;

By definition, it is not necessary that the Y-MRCA and the mt-MRCA should have lived at the same time,[4][5] even though current (as of 2014) estimates suggest the possibility that the two individuals may well have been roughly contemporaneous (albeit with uncertainties ranging in the tens of thousands of years).[6]

The idea of man coming first doesn’t make any sense, you can tell the Bible was written by bloody men trying to justify why their wives should never defy them and how God was totally a man (even the angels were sexless). The first sex would need to bear children without the divine plan for another, good luck with that guys!

Male is the sex surplus to reproductive requirement.
The desert island situation requires women or invites death.
You can still harvest sperm from a dead man.

I love the hamstering here from a man;

Quote: “It’s interesting that many human cultures place such high value on the male.”

“Yes, I think this is a product of patriarchy. In a sense that is ironic because patriarchy evolves to gain complete control of female reproduction (monopolizing a scarce resource).”

First off, female reproduction is not “scarce.” It is everywhere!

Once every 9 months versus once every five minutes. Fuck you.

“Patriarchy” is an attempt to equalize the reproductive process between males and females. It is an attempt to take those useless males and make them productive by attaching them to the reproductive process, of which they are normally rejected from. In fact, in all of nature, the only species which tries to equalize the reproduction of the male and female is the human species.

The weak men offer the comforts of civilization in return for female dependence.
You can’t square a circle. It’s a social construct, it doesn’t change the biological reality.

This pair bonding brought the males into directly provisioning benefits for both the female and the offspring she (and he) produced. Pair bonding between the male and female stopped the tendency of males to “duff each other up” and rather, enticed them to co-operate with each other by bringing them directly into the reproductive process. You can see that this process endorses the views of Robert Briffault, quoted above, who declares that males must bring a benefit to the female in order for her to associate and reproduce with him.

Exactly.
The rest is r/K being squished into a bullshit male/female frame.

As for Amazonian women, they existed pre-civilization.
Men provide civilization and build the home, women keep it and fill it.
Fair exchange, I think.

In the beginning, the duality of sexuality (male and female gender roles) is used to overcome environmental adversity and as the adversity disappears, so does sexual restraint and the need for gender roles… which causes the fall of the civilization and thus again creates the adversity which demands gender roles be enforced.

You need to read some Biohistory, man.

Woman holds the future card, a genetic future, men build it, the cradle.