Disposability of males

Evo-psych pseudoscience. Women get tricked into becoming career oriented strivers who compete with male career oriented strivers. When men aren’t dominant any more they realize he system is ducked so instead of offering a radical change that gives people value outside the career they want to retreat to The Before Time where they didn’t need to work so hard.

This.

I don't understand. Please explain it in more simple words.

matter to what?

To women and by extension society

>But regulating human behavior is a bad thing.
But why? Aren't sexual norms societies way of regulating evolutionarily harmful behaviors?
>Economic and social freedom is the key to the future.
Key to what? the future? All you've really said here is that general permissiveness is the trajectory of society. Though, I'm not even sure that economic freedom is the trend.

Here's the thing, as tech and modernity upgrades - or, frees up - the ability of choice, these successes are usually first felt by high, functioning/iq societies and then are spread due to a strain of benevolence onto the more benighted, less productive.

That freedom in the hands of low is likely to spell disaster for the more productive, i.e. phenomenon like free rider problem occur.

so what do women do with the rest 80% of men ?

Ignore them or use them as slave labor or cannon fodder. That's what happens in nature and will soon happen irl.

lol
you sure have a strict cold mother.

It's not a joke. Males suffer so much.

Have to disarm them and make them as nutered as possible and get the 20 percent of men onboard with them. Which they most likely will since pussy is a powerful bargaining took

they gonna break my pelvis. evil women.

it's not 80%, it's 60%. If you do genetic analysis you find that about 40% of males and 80% of females have reproduced historically in our species. Within that 40% of males there is an imbalance as well though with the higher percentiles having more kids than the lower ones.

You have a society where people are treated largely as mechanical parts and only valued by their efficiency, generally measured by the status of their career and what it offers (consumer goods).

This comes into conflict with our biological functions, the most prominent of which is breeding and the continuation of the species. If you focus on your career you have less time to breed and this is felt more heavily by women who only came to spread throughout the workforce in the later 20th century.

In the late 20th and early 21st century our individual desires have largely been crushed and our lives have been reoriented to reproduction of the state at the consequence of biological reproduction. Men blame this on women entering the workforce because they can’t see the forces that are actually binding them. The ‘biological’ justifications are tainted because they ignore large periods of evolution where monogamy wasn’t practiced and apply contemporary biases to past decisions which strips them of their historical context.

80% of males are loosers.

Beign the top 20% male, hell, being a top 5% male is literally two years of fitness, learning a musical instrument, having a job that pays above average income, having a nice haircut, using a perfume, having a home, having a car.

When you realize that 80% of males fail at even doing that, you lose respect for them.

t. guy

Attached: ropa.png (929x696, 247K)

Yeah but it's only 40% because we're humans. In nature it's 80%.
The 80/20 rule is a natural truth even in businesses.

Nature doesn't follow an 80/20 rule all the time, that is honestly a very ridiculous thing to say. Some birds are practically monogamous, vs Walruses which have an absurd ratio of successful males to failed males. Im sure there are even more extreme examples.

>in nature
>humans are unnatural

It's not that low. There was an paper recently that had it at around 1 man reproducing for ~1.2 women.

Yes nature doesn't always follow that but WE DO. Sometimes we try not to using culture.

Culture is unnatural

psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success

hello newfags.

Yeah everyone on Yea Forums has seen that paper, that was one period during history near the beginning of agriculture.

>Culture is unnatural
Retard.

>rough dating scene after the advent of agriculture.
Read the articles you post. Retard.

why do assume that humans aren't naturally hardwire that way?

good post

>dude, such things doesn't affect us nomore
cope more incel.

Yep, I'm just another dumb and ugly guy. Not gonna get laid in this life. Maybe the next.

>humans aren't hypergamous
Then explain this you guys

Attached: 1568736985830.jpg (416x533, 60K)

looks > everything
dumbass

>being a wageslave
>top 5%.

I just lose my respect for you.

women don't care about looks that much . They care about other things.

it's simple, women are thots and their rights need to be suppressed or they will lead us to societal collapse

Because that only occurred during one very specific point in history.

I'm the incel? That's rich.

1) women are better looking than men on average
2)

looks are important, and height, but status and money are as important for women than looks.

plenty of ugly males with status who gets laids (ugly musicians or atlethes).

More attractive women use okcupid than men. Women care more about their appearance than men. Men care more about women’s appearance than their own. Male beauty is discouraged in our culture while women’s is prized.

We aren't exactly naturally hardwired one way or the other. Men have two strategies hardwired into them to varying degrees, crudely put: impregnate many, raise none; and impregnate one, help her raise them.
Women dont exactly have two strategies but rather two impulses, one is to be impregnated by the highest value male possible, the second is to have the most secure provider. These strategies are obviously in conflict and the males aren't going to go along with raising other males kids(at least not for long evolutionarily speaking, that behavior will necessarily die out). If resources are abundant women may choose to raise children on their own, or in some humans males will help raise their sister's children to ensure some level of genetic relation. There are a huge amount of factors involved here.

So there is a 4dimensional conflict going on between and within the sexes, when you add in that humans have culture which mediates these genetic impulses it becomes kind of impossible to say what is 'natural', but again if you look at our genome you see something like 40% of males and 80% of females reproducing on the whole, so I think that's a more reasonable estimate than 80/20.

tldr men and women have different 'natural ideals' of how they'd like things to go, are constantly in conflict over this, and culture confounds everything massively.

>women don't care about looks that much
oh nononono look at this poor coper
>muh status
yeah the uglier you are the more wealth you need wow what insight bezos literally had to become the richest man on earth to get some used goods LMAO

why do u assume that because it happened once disproves that humans are hypergamous?

then why the only guys that get laid are attractive guys on tinder and okcupid?

money can increase a guy appeal.

1.5k of aditional income can make a girl ignore one cm of height.

So, 10 cm of aditional height means you need 15 grands of more income.

>but again if you look at our genome you see something like 40% of males and 80% of females reproducing on the whole
The difference is nowhere near that big.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2833377/

correct. women however naturally lust after attractive males. just sit down with some soccer moms and you'll see what I mean after 15 minutes of them chatting. she'll settle with a beta if he has lots of money and can give her material goodies, but she'll always want chad, hence why the divorce rate and cheating is so high today. it's not as frowned upon as it was before and they're not shamed for doing it.

> women are better looking than men on average

That doens't make sense, you can argue they take care of their apparence, use make up, or they have higher standars, it could be a combination of both

Read "Libido Dominandi"

Because those are sites where appearance is valued. That’s one of the big negatives of visual media, which includes dating apps. Men are at a disadvantage because they go most of their lives without their appearance being questioned so the second it’s important all they can say is “muh 80/20”

>1) women are better looking than men on average
Absolutely not. Women use make-up to APPEAR better looking. Women are deceivers. The average male looks a lot better than the average female when you remove face paint.

So you can't see appearance in public? Dating apps are just real life with less bullshit hoops females put you through with their shit tests since they have a larger dating pool and.

maybe having incels and betas not being able to breed is good.

why the fuck do u niggers support eugenics but not hypergamy?

Attached: you-just-need-to-be-more-confident-bro-1144023.png (500x383, 101K)

Most relationships start between people who work or take classes together. They are brought together by common interests. Dating apps are a one dimensional way to meet people, similar to cold calling in sales. It’s not representative of most relationships

Well that is interesting. I didn't just read that 40-80 figure on a blog or something, it was in a paper from around 2005 or something, ill try to find it.

That would be the same basic pattern I was describing though, also lol at the Africa/Euro/EastAsian pattern. Every single time.

Most relationships start because people are PHYSICALLY ATTRACTED to one another. It takes like .5 secs for a woman to decide if she's physically repulsed by a male. Most orbits begin the way you describe.

I'm not saying it's good or bad. It is what it is. Women like to deny hypergamy because it makes them feel evil and they want to trick lesser males. Don't believe the thot's tricks.

All men are genetically inferior scum and must be purged.

>women don't care about looks that much . They care about other things
This is incredibly false. Your entire personality is judged based on your appearance.

This is true for women as well, and it's what's responsible for the "women are wonderful" effect. You can see a similar effect regarding babies. It's triggered by observing features of neoteny and beauty.

That women sometimes marry men for convenience (money, status) does not discount looks. Looks are of primary importance.

Women have never fantasized about fucking Bill Gates. Nor even Vin Diesel. Robert Pattinson, despite being poorer and less masculine, is more desirable solely because he is physically attractive. There is no other kind of attraction, really, which is why we reserve the word "attractive" as a synonym for "good looking" and not "dominant" or "wealthy"

>women don't care about looks that much
As someone that traveled through both extremes when it comes to physical appearance, you're absolutely, incorrigibly, absurdly incorrect.

literally feeding off each others insecurities: the thread

This user gets it. If you're a quiet attractive male, you're cute and shy. If you're a quiet ugly male, you're creepy. Women having access to unprecedented amounts of tools that alter their appearance has led to the massive pussy worship of our time. If a woman is at least a 5 (which every woman can achieve with makeup btw) then she will have no problem finding a partner, because there will always at least be a beta lining up to lick her arse clean.

because males actually love to be disposable. the whole drive of a male is to be acknowledged as being useful
-being useful towards a woman is just giving her great sex and solving her little problems and a man is indeed always happy to be chosen by a woman to give sex FOR FREE
-being useful to other men is just paying taxes and trying to fulfill the moronic male idea of ''serving'' the clan, the group, the society, the kingdom, which is symbolized by acquiring lots of worthless medals (but spineless men like militaries love that crap)

men derive meaning and purposes from women and their retarded idea of progress of society. when men do not have this, they literally get depressed and commit suicide. It is a matter of life and death for a male to be seen as useful

Attached: 1556036917633.jpg (1800x1358, 378K)

Male users of OKCupid are actually ugly. Not surprising t.b.h.

Men value too much women and the big mistake of a man is that he think he is no longer dispoabled, he no longer competes with other man, once a woman has chosen him for casual entertainment. It turns out a woman always keep her orbiters in competition, even when she shacks up with one of her orbiters.
THen it gets even worse, because a woman lives for sex and only sex:
-when she is around other women, they talk about sex
-when she is with men, she has sex
-when she watches tv, read books and what bourgeois wanabes call ''culture'', which is a fancy word for entertainment, they are about sex

First no man can please sexually a woman day after. A woman gets bored sexually very quickly, especially once the novelty of the nonsexual entertainment wears off with her current official provider.

What women love the most is what they call ''summer loves'', ie casual sex with whatever chads they can get in the summer holiday. WOmen love that because women hate commitements on their parts, and by definition the casual shagging is set to last only the summer.

In the context of companies, the summer love happens at conferences, workshops and the like, where the women love to spread their legs before whatever strangers attend the workshops. Lots casual sex free of charge given by the beta cucks.

The major problem for women is that it is only a matter before they get pregnant, after spreading their legs.
THen it is time to find an official provider who will provider for the daily life and more or less secretly continue to have casual sex at the workshops or with some coworkers.

Attached: 1542944876776.jpg (1200x709, 98K)

lmao incel, just go to the gym and you can slay whores.

cope.

Attached: Razvan-transform-split.jpg (1419x799, 148K)

In public things like voice, posture, gestures, natural charisma, physical contact and smell enter into play. We don't often talk about smell but that's a big part of physical attraction.
Also people on a date aren't just "in public", they're generally in a place chosen by at least one of them talking or engaging in some other form of bonding activity. Don't you understand how basic social interaction work? Are you familiar with the concept of flirting?

This unfortunately. This is also the root of the ideal of the chivalrous behavior.
Now realize it is one thing, rooting it out is another.

>tfw it's true
I was doing just fine being a hermit away from society until I met a woman who amazed me, then I joined the "must worship pussy" cult.

But I don't want to learn an instrument.

then learn to paint or do poetrhy, bitch.

yeah, and they get cuckolded before getting divorced, before being robbed of fifty percent of their possessions.
And guess who the bull always is. That's right, an immediately sexually attractive man

you can become sexually atractive with proper grooming + gym

Can I do other creative creating but poetry?

bitches love poetrhy.

just get some interesting hobbies, nigger.
girls don't care about them but they like to see guys with personality.

>Women have never fantasized about fucking Bill Gates. Nor even Vin Diesel.

well they have this 50 shades of grey fantasy. lmao. women are not that creative about sexual fantasies.

tell us your story.

Christian Grey looks nothing like Vin Diesel.

In fact, I have never heard of any woman describing bald men as attractive.

Aren't some sjw advocating about the "short prince"? or some shit like that, saying that midgets are better and kinder than the tall white males (actually i love how they add whites in that article)

nice literature thread you got there incels and trannies

is not about how christian grey looks, is because he has an helicopter.

>is not about how christian grey looks
OK, then they could have cast Steve Buscemi instead of Jamie Dornan. You say women's sexual attraction is based on status only, right? Let's test that hypothesis.

I haven't heard of that but I can guarantee you it's all virtue signaling.