Deleted member 4612
mentally crippled by lonely teen years
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2020
- Posts
- 21,748
- Reputation
- 43,279
Here I will collect a few thoughts I have regarding the field of “evolutionary psychology” in general and its particular application to questions of female sexuality.
Certainly most of you reading this are very familiar with the line of argumentation that attempts to ground female desire in the operation of evolutionary principles as it relates to offspring success; it is ubiquitous on ‘blackpill’ sites. Some of you may even use it yourselves. It is my aim here to show not only the logical faults of this approach, but also its insidious role in legitimizing the otherwise unjustifiable caprices of the human female – two considerations which taken together will hopefully induce some people to reconsider the validity or appeal of these explanations.
First off, we have immediately to deal with the assertion that female mate choice is motivated by an occult sense for ‘good genes.’ The most immediate expression of this would be the ‘sexy son hypothesis’, which posits that women choose mates most likely to produce offspring with potential for the greatest reproductive success. This is to say ‘women like what women like’, which is just a tautology and is absolutely useless to us. Moreover, they do not even know what they like. The phenomenon of ‘preselection’ makes this clear, where women can be put off a man by the opinions of other holes, while seeing an otherwise undesirable man with many holes will raise her attraction to him and even induce her to compete for him. Their aesthetic judgment is so crude that they cannot, without help, even identify what features would as a rule appeal to their sex exactly because they themselves don’t know what they like and need to be told, owing to their severely atrophied sense for the beautiful.
Next, we will deal with the assumption that women choose the men best suited to their environments, which, if we are correct in saying that holes do not even know about their own desires, is already a fortiori incorrect. We can see obviously that this is not the case by looking at modern life. Electricians and bugman programmers, who properly lay the foundation for so much of the current system and ensure its smooth operation, are certainly not our modern-day Don Juans. Instead holes whore themselves out to various hominids and Yidstagram celebrities who abandon them with bastard children even a touch less intelligent and civilized than themselves.
We might hear in protest that evolution hasn’t had time to ‘catch up' with the current state of things and instead relies on the finely tuned selection mechanisms shaped by the bare state of nature in which man lived until the advent of civilization. After all, desire isn’t ‘rational’ – it’s even better! Foids ‘just know’ which man is the healthiest, the strongest, the most cunning, etc. But no, this is far off the mark too. How many weaklings, how many fools, how many incompetent deadbeats, how many cowards, have we seen ‘graced’ with female companionship? And how many fit, dutiful, and intelligent men left in the ditch as the counterpositives? We may even call human sexual selection totally into question as a means of adaptation to the surrounding world. If we assume that female mate choice adapted man to his environment together with the environment itself, both in the exact same manner, this would be to overdetermine evolution. Which is to say, we would have more factors involved in natural selection than are actually required for its operation. This leaves a gap in accounting for a naturally emergent sexual selection by the principle of selection itself, as there is no selective benefit to reinforcing the population-level adaptive changes that are wrought by natural selection with sexual selection if they are both selecting for the same things.
The ‘discovery’ of sexual selection, or at least its formulation as a principle of nature, has in fact coincided with the initiation of severe dysgenic fertility in the Western world. Darwin and those ‘progressives’ under the aegis of his influence such as Herbert Spencer and George Bernard Shaw have in fact been the heralds of Europe’s ‘fellahization’ and regression into gynocritic darkness. It is not a coincidence either that the majority of the most avowed evopsych blackpillers are drawn from populations long adapted to gynocracy. Many men still rest firm in the conviction that the female is a ‘eugenicist’ in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary presented before their eyes daily. I will not go looking for it, but there are interesting data that show the association between reproductive success and various biometrics. For men, intelligence and – get this – height are negatively correlated with reproduction, while susceptibility to obesity and metabolic diseases are positively correlated. There were some other interesting ones, which I can’t recall immediately, that all serve to drive home a central implicit point: holes do not know anything about what a good, or even healthy, man is.
We can see that evolutionary explanations are a sort of biological retrosynthesis, one that attempts to reconstitute a distant, unexperienced past by starting from a theoretical basis - this gaze backwards is therefore inevitably colored to some degree by modern prejudices and results in the reification of modern obsessions as natural laws. Evolutionary narratives along these lines are almost entirely speculative and do not submit to direct empirical confirmation. Darwinism can in this respect be compared to metaphysics, both of which rely on principles in order to describe a movement that occurs outside the realm of sense perception. The principle of modern evolutionism however, is the same one we meet with elsewhere under gynocracy - the venerated woman-judge presiding over the cosmic operation of the world, deciding what belongs to life properly considered and what has mistakenly found its way into life.
As to why low status men are compelled to take up this line of reasoning, I will firstly direct you to my thread concerning the nature of self-deprecation and status signaling. This only partly explains the prevalence of ‘genetic determinism’ among the blackpilled though, to the point where it has now achieved so much consensus that it seems a necessary precondition of having a ‘realistic’ perspective as low status man. In many cases, ‘scientistic’ and mechanistic-causal explanations of human life have a sort of superficial appeal in that they appear to require a cold and liberated gaze freed of all illusion in order to be comprehended, which is to say they appear ‘fashionable’ and yet ‘uncompromising’ (may be helpful to compare with my notes on ‘rebellion’) - a capacity in which they are aided by the cult of Popular Science and the modern anti-metaphysical ‘philosophy.’ In other cases we may simply be dealing with people who are epistemologically incapable of cognizing values outside of, moreover in conflict with, female sexual desire. When a l’Ookism celebrity goes into all his obsessively accumulated information ranging from canthal tilt angles to OkCupid messages, we should not forget that the ground and assumption of this entire endeavor is that ‘woman’s opinion matters.’
The entire enterprise of rationalizing mate selection as a product of evolutionary action is in fact a grandiose apologetic for female mistakes. By attempting to naturalize female desire, our evolutionist would like to contrive a firm and unshakeable basis for female-governed sexual selection and is acting as a flagrant servant to gynocracy. In actuality, female sexual behavior is the most chaotic and directionless force operational in human society and is only given form by the cultural systems created by man that let them know what they ‘should’ like through social pressure. Everything conventionally eugenic is handed down from the mind of man to the loin of woman. By handing the reins to woman in a foolish bout of progressive optimism, the men at the dawn of the industrial age have invited history to chastise them, as they have precipitated the emergence of conditions that ensure that this world will soon no longer be populated by the sort of men who are capable of writing books in defense of women.
@Gunnersup @Proex @TraumatisedOgre @The giga incel @arianaisawesome @OOGABOOGA @AlwaysHaveQuestions @Lasko123 @joeveniro @ImprovLoser @austrianvirgin @rightfulcel @thehealingfields
Certainly most of you reading this are very familiar with the line of argumentation that attempts to ground female desire in the operation of evolutionary principles as it relates to offspring success; it is ubiquitous on ‘blackpill’ sites. Some of you may even use it yourselves. It is my aim here to show not only the logical faults of this approach, but also its insidious role in legitimizing the otherwise unjustifiable caprices of the human female – two considerations which taken together will hopefully induce some people to reconsider the validity or appeal of these explanations.
First off, we have immediately to deal with the assertion that female mate choice is motivated by an occult sense for ‘good genes.’ The most immediate expression of this would be the ‘sexy son hypothesis’, which posits that women choose mates most likely to produce offspring with potential for the greatest reproductive success. This is to say ‘women like what women like’, which is just a tautology and is absolutely useless to us. Moreover, they do not even know what they like. The phenomenon of ‘preselection’ makes this clear, where women can be put off a man by the opinions of other holes, while seeing an otherwise undesirable man with many holes will raise her attraction to him and even induce her to compete for him. Their aesthetic judgment is so crude that they cannot, without help, even identify what features would as a rule appeal to their sex exactly because they themselves don’t know what they like and need to be told, owing to their severely atrophied sense for the beautiful.
Next, we will deal with the assumption that women choose the men best suited to their environments, which, if we are correct in saying that holes do not even know about their own desires, is already a fortiori incorrect. We can see obviously that this is not the case by looking at modern life. Electricians and bugman programmers, who properly lay the foundation for so much of the current system and ensure its smooth operation, are certainly not our modern-day Don Juans. Instead holes whore themselves out to various hominids and Yidstagram celebrities who abandon them with bastard children even a touch less intelligent and civilized than themselves.
We might hear in protest that evolution hasn’t had time to ‘catch up' with the current state of things and instead relies on the finely tuned selection mechanisms shaped by the bare state of nature in which man lived until the advent of civilization. After all, desire isn’t ‘rational’ – it’s even better! Foids ‘just know’ which man is the healthiest, the strongest, the most cunning, etc. But no, this is far off the mark too. How many weaklings, how many fools, how many incompetent deadbeats, how many cowards, have we seen ‘graced’ with female companionship? And how many fit, dutiful, and intelligent men left in the ditch as the counterpositives? We may even call human sexual selection totally into question as a means of adaptation to the surrounding world. If we assume that female mate choice adapted man to his environment together with the environment itself, both in the exact same manner, this would be to overdetermine evolution. Which is to say, we would have more factors involved in natural selection than are actually required for its operation. This leaves a gap in accounting for a naturally emergent sexual selection by the principle of selection itself, as there is no selective benefit to reinforcing the population-level adaptive changes that are wrought by natural selection with sexual selection if they are both selecting for the same things.
The ‘discovery’ of sexual selection, or at least its formulation as a principle of nature, has in fact coincided with the initiation of severe dysgenic fertility in the Western world. Darwin and those ‘progressives’ under the aegis of his influence such as Herbert Spencer and George Bernard Shaw have in fact been the heralds of Europe’s ‘fellahization’ and regression into gynocritic darkness. It is not a coincidence either that the majority of the most avowed evopsych blackpillers are drawn from populations long adapted to gynocracy. Many men still rest firm in the conviction that the female is a ‘eugenicist’ in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary presented before their eyes daily. I will not go looking for it, but there are interesting data that show the association between reproductive success and various biometrics. For men, intelligence and – get this – height are negatively correlated with reproduction, while susceptibility to obesity and metabolic diseases are positively correlated. There were some other interesting ones, which I can’t recall immediately, that all serve to drive home a central implicit point: holes do not know anything about what a good, or even healthy, man is.
We can see that evolutionary explanations are a sort of biological retrosynthesis, one that attempts to reconstitute a distant, unexperienced past by starting from a theoretical basis - this gaze backwards is therefore inevitably colored to some degree by modern prejudices and results in the reification of modern obsessions as natural laws. Evolutionary narratives along these lines are almost entirely speculative and do not submit to direct empirical confirmation. Darwinism can in this respect be compared to metaphysics, both of which rely on principles in order to describe a movement that occurs outside the realm of sense perception. The principle of modern evolutionism however, is the same one we meet with elsewhere under gynocracy - the venerated woman-judge presiding over the cosmic operation of the world, deciding what belongs to life properly considered and what has mistakenly found its way into life.
As to why low status men are compelled to take up this line of reasoning, I will firstly direct you to my thread concerning the nature of self-deprecation and status signaling. This only partly explains the prevalence of ‘genetic determinism’ among the blackpilled though, to the point where it has now achieved so much consensus that it seems a necessary precondition of having a ‘realistic’ perspective as low status man. In many cases, ‘scientistic’ and mechanistic-causal explanations of human life have a sort of superficial appeal in that they appear to require a cold and liberated gaze freed of all illusion in order to be comprehended, which is to say they appear ‘fashionable’ and yet ‘uncompromising’ (may be helpful to compare with my notes on ‘rebellion’) - a capacity in which they are aided by the cult of Popular Science and the modern anti-metaphysical ‘philosophy.’ In other cases we may simply be dealing with people who are epistemologically incapable of cognizing values outside of, moreover in conflict with, female sexual desire. When a l’Ookism celebrity goes into all his obsessively accumulated information ranging from canthal tilt angles to OkCupid messages, we should not forget that the ground and assumption of this entire endeavor is that ‘woman’s opinion matters.’
The entire enterprise of rationalizing mate selection as a product of evolutionary action is in fact a grandiose apologetic for female mistakes. By attempting to naturalize female desire, our evolutionist would like to contrive a firm and unshakeable basis for female-governed sexual selection and is acting as a flagrant servant to gynocracy. In actuality, female sexual behavior is the most chaotic and directionless force operational in human society and is only given form by the cultural systems created by man that let them know what they ‘should’ like through social pressure. Everything conventionally eugenic is handed down from the mind of man to the loin of woman. By handing the reins to woman in a foolish bout of progressive optimism, the men at the dawn of the industrial age have invited history to chastise them, as they have precipitated the emergence of conditions that ensure that this world will soon no longer be populated by the sort of men who are capable of writing books in defense of women.
@Gunnersup @Proex @TraumatisedOgre @The giga incel @arianaisawesome @OOGABOOGA @AlwaysHaveQuestions @Lasko123 @joeveniro @ImprovLoser @austrianvirgin @rightfulcel @thehealingfields
Last edited:
