Deleted member 14781
CEO of Dark Triad and JBs secret fantasy
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2021
- Posts
- 2,341
- Reputation
- 5,254
I'm not sold on the theory that women select for good genes. First thing, universally good genes don't exist, good genes are good as the environment lets them be. Let's say that having dark skin is good to survive under hot climate, the same characteristic is bad in a very cold and rainy place.
Natural selection can suddenly change their criteria, women can't. Let's say a tribe of niggers has to migrate to the north because of reasons, and in northen areas they can't get as much sun as they used to, women still have the biological need to select for dark skin over paler one.
Even being tall has more disadvantages than being short (more food needed, being a bigger target, more stress on the organs and so on) but women still select for those traits. Why? Some could argue that is due to the "handicap principle" theory that states that women select men who show signs of handicaps because it shows that they are unfit but they can survive, so they must be really fit (think about the peacock tail)
This is utter nonsense, that would equate to say that being short, being obese or being a freaky muscular bodybuilder should be attractive because it shows that you can survive despite having an handicap.
I think that letting women decide the fate of humanity is a cope for those reasons.
1) women could be attracted to the winners of infraspecies competition who took them as a prize and rape them. The ones who didn't submit were killed. You can't make your species evolve if suddenly you remove infraspecies competition (this happened when society was created)
2) women could be attracted to the men they like due to result of random mutations, meaning that if out of 100 men only 10 survived they would choose the one who has the most similar characteristics to their taste
Don't come at me with the studies showing that simmetrical faces are more healthy than asimmetrical faces for example, those studies use extreme examples (on both ends) and are not realiable, it's like saying that being 6ft5 is better than being 3ft therefore the taller you are the better, which is false.
Natural selection can suddenly change their criteria, women can't. Let's say a tribe of niggers has to migrate to the north because of reasons, and in northen areas they can't get as much sun as they used to, women still have the biological need to select for dark skin over paler one.
Even being tall has more disadvantages than being short (more food needed, being a bigger target, more stress on the organs and so on) but women still select for those traits. Why? Some could argue that is due to the "handicap principle" theory that states that women select men who show signs of handicaps because it shows that they are unfit but they can survive, so they must be really fit (think about the peacock tail)
This is utter nonsense, that would equate to say that being short, being obese or being a freaky muscular bodybuilder should be attractive because it shows that you can survive despite having an handicap.
I think that letting women decide the fate of humanity is a cope for those reasons.
1) women could be attracted to the winners of infraspecies competition who took them as a prize and rape them. The ones who didn't submit were killed. You can't make your species evolve if suddenly you remove infraspecies competition (this happened when society was created)
2) women could be attracted to the men they like due to result of random mutations, meaning that if out of 100 men only 10 survived they would choose the one who has the most similar characteristics to their taste
Don't come at me with the studies showing that simmetrical faces are more healthy than asimmetrical faces for example, those studies use extreme examples (on both ends) and are not realiable, it's like saying that being 6ft5 is better than being 3ft therefore the taller you are the better, which is false.
