Vvx16
i hate intra and inter sexual theory
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2024
- Posts
- 119
- Reputation
- 76
EARLY NOTES(1): This thread was written in my native language and translated with deepl, an AI power translator, any AI-like syntax is due to the translator
EARLY NOTES(2): This thread is aimed to understand nature a little beyond just women hypergamy, instead of blame women for hypergamy, lets understand why animals—and, consequently, nature—are the problem, we'll see how there's a fairly common pattern among animals with complex nervous systems and social lives, we will also dive in the sexual preferences of animals, how the inter-sexual theory works(for know we will skip intra-sexual selection theory, aka, males vs males).
EARLY NOTES(3): I am human, i can make mistakes. If any study has been interpreted indefinitely, let me know in the answers and I will correct it, as long as you are civilized and there is a real reason to do so, the idea is to educate and share knowledge
Purpose of this thread: This thread is a call to all men who are biased toward “attractiveness.” It is a fundamental trait, yes!, but we'll see how race intelligence(over for iqlets), and the ability to provide and care (over for shortcels unless the woman is smart enough to use her brain, notice how i dont put manlet there, if you are too short, then its over) are much important than you think, thats why even not quite often you will see an "ugly" guy with a hot girl, iq, race and other non "face" factors matter alot. THIS IS THE EXPLANATION, not that bullshit about “the exception proves the rule.” not the picture of red and blue circles, in biology, there is always an explanation, if you have to debate some women or blupiller, this is what you gonna respond, not with the "but the blue circle is the exception so most women, bla bla bla". like this image:
listen music while read
even more chill music
When we talk about hypergamy and women in biology, you absolutely have to turn to Bateman. Let’s look at his study, “Intra-sexual Selection in Drosophila,” which tells us that there’s a large variance among males but not among females when it comes to reproduction, leading to the conclusion that males exhibit greater variance in sexual relationships, whereas the same is not true for females, who tend to produce relatively uniform offspring. This is due to: “Male Drosophila invest very
little metabolic energy in the production of a given sex cell, whereas females invest considerable energy; a male’s reproductive success is not limited by his
ability to produce sex cells, but by his ability to fertilize eggs with these cells”(quoted from Parental Investment and Sexual Selection.pdf)—basically, Bateman’s principle.
Oh, my dear bpillers and aware chads, let's not just stick to Drosophila—let's take a look at dating apps. We know very well how they work, so let's look at a graph:
Actually, it's pretty much a given, given what Bateman says. Let's look at the objections raised by some low-IQ people and see how we can refute them.
Objection 1: The gender ratio in the app is skewed. Since most people on dating apps are men, this in itself creates an imbalance or bias; this is the supply-and-demand argument.
Answer: Oh, my little cuck blupiller, you have no idea what you've gotten yourself into. There are indeed studies on this—let's look at the abstract of the study - "Gender Differences in Mate Selection: Evidence From a Speed Dating Experiment" 1:1 replica, with an equal number of men and women, the abstract says in summary:
Ⅱ. The Cruelty of NatureJust by reading a little bit of Bateman and Darwin, we realize that something doesn't quite add up. My first approach to this question was Nancy Etcoff’s Survival of the Prettiest showing that mothers respond more warmly and affectionately to more attractive newborns, and that less attractive or prematurely born babies can be perceived as older, more difficult, and even face higher risk of neglect or abuse because their faces don’t trigger the same protective instincts.
i let you the entire quote so you can read it if you want and how brutal the nature is:
If you ask me, this is very brutal, a lookism reallity that can make us think if we deserve to be alive as species. Why this happen? Let’s start, then, with pattern recognition. We might ask ourselves: Does this happen with sea cucumbers or some other animal without a complex, centralized nervous system? Apparently not, but this brings two factors into play: on the one hand, the complex, centralized nervous system, and on the other, social life. The evidence suggests that social life is the cause of all this—or at least the primary factor responsible. We see this in Octopuses(high iq, no social life, no problems), Orangutans(high iq, no social life, no problems), etc. We can therefore infer that social life is the biggest problem; we can see this in ants, for example—animals with tiny brains but a high degree of social cruelty, and even slave-owning behavior in some species.
He basically said that the sex that invests more resources in its offspring (i.e., breastfeeding, gestation, or care) is the one that chooses; it tends to be more selective, and consequently, the sex that does not invest resources in its offspring needs to compensate, so it has to show off, display its attributes so that, in general, the females—who mostly spend their resources on offspring—can choose an alpha male with good genes. Take the case of peacocks, ducks, some goats, or reindeer, among others: you can see how the male is more attractive than the female, more striking. Males invest in their genes for their own sake—their power and status—as observations of coyotes and other mammals demonstrate, while females focus on raising and bearing offspring—a perfect balance.
So are the females of the natural world the wicked ones? Not exactly; there are also cases where the opposite is true: males are the hypergamous ones. In some mammals and birds, it is not the females who are the most selective, but rather the males who raise the young and hold the decision-making power. Clutton-Brock discusses this in *The Evolution of Parental Care*.
We can point out that women tend to be more hypergamous than men because of this natural inequality in child-rearing, but there is also evidence that the opposite is true; it is not a matter of gender per se, but rather of how one is raised and the relationship that the gender in question has with the child’s upbringing.
The Study That Debunks Hypergamy: The studies that most people cite as examples have two problems that don’t invalidate them, but do exaggerate them: the idea that women are more selective than men because there are more men on dating apps—which is partially true—but as noted in the response, there are 1:1 studies where women still have higher standards, now here’s the catch: in all these studies, the women were the ones who stayed put, while the men were the ones swiping, and the women were the ones receiving the swipes. When the genders were reversed, the results showed that men were the ones with higher standards. The simple act of swiping subconsciously gives you less power—this is something that can be concluded by looking at the results. The study:
other studies:
what women say they like vs what they actually like:
already in this thread, but women prefering race and iq:
THE END: LOOKS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT THING; DONT GET MY WRONG, BUT OTHER THINGS ALSO MATTER ALLOT, THE IDEA IS BE AWARE OF NATURE AND MAXX IF POSSIBLE OTHER ASPECT OF LIFE, LIKE SEX OR PERSONALITY AND IQ, IM THINKING ON DOING A NON-LOOKS GUIDE BASE ON STUDIES AND LITERATURE, THIS WAS A MORE THEORY BUT IF IS THE NUMBER OF dnr ARE NOT THAT HIGH I WILL MAKE A MORE PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE ALREDY MENTIONED. KEEP MAXXING.
EARLY NOTES(2): This thread is aimed to understand nature a little beyond just women hypergamy, instead of blame women for hypergamy, lets understand why animals—and, consequently, nature—are the problem, we'll see how there's a fairly common pattern among animals with complex nervous systems and social lives, we will also dive in the sexual preferences of animals, how the inter-sexual theory works(for know we will skip intra-sexual selection theory, aka, males vs males).
EARLY NOTES(3): I am human, i can make mistakes. If any study has been interpreted indefinitely, let me know in the answers and I will correct it, as long as you are civilized and there is a real reason to do so, the idea is to educate and share knowledge
Purpose of this thread: This thread is a call to all men who are biased toward “attractiveness.” It is a fundamental trait, yes!, but we'll see how race intelligence(over for iqlets), and the ability to provide and care (over for shortcels unless the woman is smart enough to use her brain, notice how i dont put manlet there, if you are too short, then its over) are much important than you think, thats why even not quite often you will see an "ugly" guy with a hot girl, iq, race and other non "face" factors matter alot. THIS IS THE EXPLANATION, not that bullshit about “the exception proves the rule.” not the picture of red and blue circles, in biology, there is always an explanation, if you have to debate some women or blupiller, this is what you gonna respond, not with the "but the blue circle is the exception so most women, bla bla bla". like this image:
even more chill music
Ⅰ. Introduction
Let’s start with hypergamy, a phenomenon that’s attributed more to women than to men. Unfortunately, many incels just know how to complain, look at TikTok graphics, and read a few studies on dating apps—and that’s it—without digging into the real reasons why (I’m talking about the TikTok “newgens,” a group I’m also part of). We have great thinkers like Darwin, Bateman, and Buss—let’s go beyond the surface. When we talk about hypergamy and women in biology, you absolutely have to turn to Bateman. Let’s look at his study, “Intra-sexual Selection in Drosophila,” which tells us that there’s a large variance among males but not among females when it comes to reproduction, leading to the conclusion that males exhibit greater variance in sexual relationships, whereas the same is not true for females, who tend to produce relatively uniform offspring. This is due to: “Male Drosophila invest very
little metabolic energy in the production of a given sex cell, whereas females invest considerable energy; a male’s reproductive success is not limited by his
ability to produce sex cells, but by his ability to fertilize eggs with these cells”(quoted from Parental Investment and Sexual Selection.pdf)—basically, Bateman’s principle.
Oh, my dear bpillers and aware chads, let's not just stick to Drosophila—let's take a look at dating apps. We know very well how they work, so let's look at a graph:
Actually, it's pretty much a given, given what Bateman says. Let's look at the objections raised by some low-IQ people and see how we can refute them.
Objection 1: The gender ratio in the app is skewed. Since most people on dating apps are men, this in itself creates an imbalance or bias; this is the supply-and-demand argument.
Answer: Oh, my little cuck blupiller, you have no idea what you've gotten yourself into. There are indeed studies on this—let's look at the abstract of the study - "Gender Differences in Mate Selection: Evidence From a Speed Dating Experiment" 1:1 replica, with an equal number of men and women, the abstract says in summary:
BUT! WOMEN ARE STILL MORE SELECTIVE, the study shows that women still hit less "yes" than men. which may lead us to conclude that women are more hypergamous than men fucking up the bad argument of supply-demand(we will see the objection to this argument, I'll tell you up front that he doesn't have an answer and isn't very supportive of hypergamy and women's selectivity—though there are some nuances, of course).
Ⅱ. The Cruelty of Nature
i let you the entire quote so you can read it if you want and how brutal the nature is:
However, it turns out that there are slight differences in the way mothers act during their newborns’ first few days of life, and some of this behavior is in response to the baby’s appearance. Psychologists videotaped mothers and infants within days after the baby’s birth and then three months later. They also had a separate set of observers look at color photographs of the babies and rate their attractiveness.They found that the mothers of the most attractive newborns spent the most time holding the baby close, staring into thebaby’s eyes and vocalizing to the baby. They needed to beforcibly unglued in order to pay attention to anyone else. The mothers of the less attractive newborns spent more time tending to the baby’s needs (wiping, burping, checking, adjusting, and soon) and had their attention deflected more easily. They were notneglectful, but they seemed more reserved in their affection and alittle less swept off their feet.The researchers did not ask the mothers to rate their infants’looks, perhaps because they thought it too incendiary. But they did ask the mothers a number of questions about the baby andabout child care. The mothers of the less attractive babies were more likely to report feelings of stress, complain about lack oftime and energy, and worry about money. These differences largely disappeared by three months, although mothers were stillbeing more affectionate and playful with their attractive babyboys at this age.People find it easy to make judgments about which babies arethe cutest (this is why there are infant beauty contests andGerber babies). Beautiful babies are typical babies, or babies whose features mildly exaggerate the typical baby geometry: they just push all the triggers. Babies considered ugly do not have allthe triggers, and it makes them look older, as if some version ofthe triggers, and it makes them look older, as if some version oftheir future face had been placed on their newborn body. Babies born prematurely, like many at-risk babies, have these falselymature faces. When their pictures are mixed in with pictures offull-term babies, these babies are imagined to be difficult andirritable, and people are less willing to volunteer to take care ofthem. In fact, babies who are not cute can suffer even more direconsequences. When abused children under court protection were studied in California and Massachusetts, it turned out that a disproportionate number of them were unattractive. This wasn’tbecause they were badly groomed or bore unhappier facial expressions than other children. Rather, abused kids had headand face proportions that made them look less infantile and cute.Such children may be more likely to suffer abuse because theirfaces do not elicit the automatic reaction of protection and carethat more infantile faces do. These children may also beperceived as more capable than they are and may be more subject to unrealistic expectations because of their olderappearance. There is evidence that abusing parents often do have unrealistic expectations of their children. Finally, the irunusual appearance may signal poorer health or viability, as it may with a premature infant.
Ⅲ. The Sex That Breeds and the Sex That Flaunts Itself—A Well-Founded Hypothesis
This ties in very well with women's mate selection and hypergamy, and it gives us a tangible way to determine whether it's simply because women are “the evils foids” or if there's something more to it, Dear looksmaxer, let me introduce you to what is known as the parental investment theory. It start with Darwin, as always, but there really isn't an end to it. Let's look at the successor to Bateman and Darwin, mentioned earlier in this thread, and examine Trivers' work.He basically said that the sex that invests more resources in its offspring (i.e., breastfeeding, gestation, or care) is the one that chooses; it tends to be more selective, and consequently, the sex that does not invest resources in its offspring needs to compensate, so it has to show off, display its attributes so that, in general, the females—who mostly spend their resources on offspring—can choose an alpha male with good genes. Take the case of peacocks, ducks, some goats, or reindeer, among others: you can see how the male is more attractive than the female, more striking. Males invest in their genes for their own sake—their power and status—as observations of coyotes and other mammals demonstrate, while females focus on raising and bearing offspring—a perfect balance.
So are the females of the natural world the wicked ones? Not exactly; there are also cases where the opposite is true: males are the hypergamous ones. In some mammals and birds, it is not the females who are the most selective, but rather the males who raise the young and hold the decision-making power. Clutton-Brock discusses this in *The Evolution of Parental Care*.
We can point out that women tend to be more hypergamous than men because of this natural inequality in child-rearing, but there is also evidence that the opposite is true; it is not a matter of gender per se, but rather of how one is raised and the relationship that the gender in question has with the child’s upbringing.
Ⅳ. FINAL CONCLUSION
We have to be careful about jumping to conclusions too soon; a study isn't the absolute truth, but it is a good indicator. I'd like to give a brief introduction to the attributes are non-looks one and not halo effected, like sex quality, vibes that women sense(dysmorphism but i will argue is how they act and personality), display of dominance and intelligence. There is still hope for you if you reach mmtn, maxxing this abilities are key for non chad humans, like most of us. Dont think that a palate expander or some cycle will ascend you and women will want you, status, sexual quality, iq and even race are way more important than you think. Thats why some stacys dont need be with a chad but with a rich + powerfull man. I want to make a thread cover all this attributes, like a mega-thread or something, but I don't know if this will just blow over and turn out to be just a couple of dnrs.The Study That Debunks Hypergamy: The studies that most people cite as examples have two problems that don’t invalidate them, but do exaggerate them: the idea that women are more selective than men because there are more men on dating apps—which is partially true—but as noted in the response, there are 1:1 studies where women still have higher standards, now here’s the catch: in all these studies, the women were the ones who stayed put, while the men were the ones swiping, and the women were the ones receiving the swipes. When the genders were reversed, the results showed that men were the ones with higher standards. The simple act of swiping subconsciously gives you less power—this is something that can be concluded by looking at the results. The study:
other studies:
what women say they like vs what they actually like:
already in this thread, but women prefering race and iq:
THE END: LOOKS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT THING; DONT GET MY WRONG, BUT OTHER THINGS ALSO MATTER ALLOT, THE IDEA IS BE AWARE OF NATURE AND MAXX IF POSSIBLE OTHER ASPECT OF LIFE, LIKE SEX OR PERSONALITY AND IQ, IM THINKING ON DOING A NON-LOOKS GUIDE BASE ON STUDIES AND LITERATURE, THIS WAS A MORE THEORY BUT IF IS THE NUMBER OF dnr ARE NOT THAT HIGH I WILL MAKE A MORE PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE ALREDY MENTIONED. KEEP MAXXING.
