Dentis_Kalenkop
Iron
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2019
- Posts
- 23
- Reputation
- 43
This is a repost but worth reading imo. No tl;dr.
It explains why chads will chad and why only chads will chad.
Combination of everything theory
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
It's a natural reaction. Most people will not accept the fact that more than 80% of men are genetic trash only fit for a provider role. It sounds absurd when you used to believe that there is someone for everyone. Being bald, short, low testosterone, ethnic, unattractive, or any other common trait is a sexual death sentence to most people. In the hunter-gatherer period more than 10,000 years ago, it was extremely common for males to father children that weren't theirs. It's just how nature is. Women have been promised and genetically programed to seek out the best interest of our species. They want the best possible genetic recombination to create better odds of healthier, and attractive offspring with a high chance of procreation. This is why when a woman finds a guy attractive, there is a very big chance that all women find him attractive as well. (Red pill #1)
Alright, check this out. For a male fetus, there is a very narrow ontogeny window for prenatal testosterone to have an effect that last you a lifetime. Basically, the skull structure you have starting from the first week of gestation to three months of age sets the canvas of what your skull will look like in adulthood. Testosterone levels before, and during puberty enhance the craniofacial structure, increasing browridge protrusion, lower third height, face width, ramus length and chin/jaw breadth. Needless to say, the complexity of making an attractive male makes it natural for why attractive males are very rare. You need to be under the perfect conditions in very narrow windows of development to reach your full potential. Not only that, but you also need aesthetic features that comes with good genetic recombination. It takes a f*cking miracle to produce a truly attractive male. Things have to be added onto the nascent male prototype to be attractive. Testosterone is an immunosuppressant, and only the best genetic specimens can get away with high levels of stress. A neotenous male is not attractive. On the other hand, the nascent female prototype is automatically neotenous and attractive. It's only upon adding ugly or masculinized features that the female prototype become unattractive. This is biologically costly, just as is the development of attractive male traits. Female beauty lies in youth and neoteny. All humans start from a baseline of neoteny meaning that females don't require much change during the developmental stages to be reasonably attractive. Males have to escape the neotenous template using stressful endocrine hormones, while women have to retain them. For a woman to be attractive, she just needs estrogen at puberty, and not be fat. That's it. So in other words attractive females are the rule and ugly females are the exception--and vice versa for males. (Red pill #2)
There is a good evolutionary reason, men demand a hot women, as men need to be aroused to have sex. But women also need to be aroused to have sex. And there comes the problem. Now combine the fact that rape is now illegal, and feminism is a given, with red pill #2, and you can see why, we have a problem. The concentration of males having sex is increasing much more, while the proportion of males not having (lesser) sex is getting wider. A woman does not need to be aroused to get pregnant. But it isn't a good idea to take a woman against her will today. This is currently compensated with money and status. She will give you babies if you can provide her with resources. But she will cheat on you with a more attractive male nonetheless. (Red pill #3)
_______________________________________
@Wool
You claimed that average male is more attractive? You couldn't be more wrong
It explains why chads will chad and why only chads will chad.
Combination of everything theory
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
It's a natural reaction. Most people will not accept the fact that more than 80% of men are genetic trash only fit for a provider role. It sounds absurd when you used to believe that there is someone for everyone. Being bald, short, low testosterone, ethnic, unattractive, or any other common trait is a sexual death sentence to most people. In the hunter-gatherer period more than 10,000 years ago, it was extremely common for males to father children that weren't theirs. It's just how nature is. Women have been promised and genetically programed to seek out the best interest of our species. They want the best possible genetic recombination to create better odds of healthier, and attractive offspring with a high chance of procreation. This is why when a woman finds a guy attractive, there is a very big chance that all women find him attractive as well. (Red pill #1)
Alright, check this out. For a male fetus, there is a very narrow ontogeny window for prenatal testosterone to have an effect that last you a lifetime. Basically, the skull structure you have starting from the first week of gestation to three months of age sets the canvas of what your skull will look like in adulthood. Testosterone levels before, and during puberty enhance the craniofacial structure, increasing browridge protrusion, lower third height, face width, ramus length and chin/jaw breadth. Needless to say, the complexity of making an attractive male makes it natural for why attractive males are very rare. You need to be under the perfect conditions in very narrow windows of development to reach your full potential. Not only that, but you also need aesthetic features that comes with good genetic recombination. It takes a f*cking miracle to produce a truly attractive male. Things have to be added onto the nascent male prototype to be attractive. Testosterone is an immunosuppressant, and only the best genetic specimens can get away with high levels of stress. A neotenous male is not attractive. On the other hand, the nascent female prototype is automatically neotenous and attractive. It's only upon adding ugly or masculinized features that the female prototype become unattractive. This is biologically costly, just as is the development of attractive male traits. Female beauty lies in youth and neoteny. All humans start from a baseline of neoteny meaning that females don't require much change during the developmental stages to be reasonably attractive. Males have to escape the neotenous template using stressful endocrine hormones, while women have to retain them. For a woman to be attractive, she just needs estrogen at puberty, and not be fat. That's it. So in other words attractive females are the rule and ugly females are the exception--and vice versa for males. (Red pill #2)
There is a good evolutionary reason, men demand a hot women, as men need to be aroused to have sex. But women also need to be aroused to have sex. And there comes the problem. Now combine the fact that rape is now illegal, and feminism is a given, with red pill #2, and you can see why, we have a problem. The concentration of males having sex is increasing much more, while the proportion of males not having (lesser) sex is getting wider. A woman does not need to be aroused to get pregnant. But it isn't a good idea to take a woman against her will today. This is currently compensated with money and status. She will give you babies if you can provide her with resources. But she will cheat on you with a more attractive male nonetheless. (Red pill #3)
_______________________________________
@Wool
You claimed that average male is more attractive? You couldn't be more wrong
Last edited:
