Women Are Intrinsically Attracted To Evil.

[TheLastLaugh]

This is the most uncomfortable truth I have come to realize about the nature of women. Evil is defined as anything that is profoundly wicked and immoral, but the evil I'm referring to is evil in it's most vile and wicked form; evil that involves causing direct physical harm to another person even to the point of killing them. When this evil manifests itself in a male, women become automatically attracted to him. It's almost like a switch in their brain goes off.

This isn't to say that this sort of man doesn't scare women. He does, but not in the way he would scare a man or a child. A woman will only fear this sort man when she knows for a fact that he will harm her. So let's say he threatens to cause her harm, she would be terrified and stay as far away from him as possible.

But when this man presents himself as a friend or a lover, and exhibits other attractive qualities, whether it's in looks or behavior, she loses every fear and she becomes insanely attracted to him, despite him acknowledging his evil. It doesn't matter how empathic this woman is, doesn't matter how much of a good person she is, doesn't matter how much love she has for others, as long as the evil man is hers, she doesn't care who gets hurt by him so long as she doesn't participate in his evil with him.

The mere fact that a man lacks a functioning conscience and has the boldness to carry out evil acts not minding repercussions turns a woman on in a way she can't control. I'm not even going to waste time trying to figure out why this is the case. Whether it's due to evolutional biology or some maternal instinct to change him, or their attraction to dominance. I honestly don't care why they are like this, The point is that this is how women are and every man should know this.

So essentially, the more moral a man is, the less likely he is to have sex with a woman. While the opposite is the case. The less moral a man is the more likely he is to have sex with a woman. The only women who want moral, religious men are women who want to get married, after they've gathered body counts that run in 20+. The reason they want so called godly men is because they know that these men have low body counts, would be stupid enough to commit to them wholeheartedly, and most importantly easy to manipulate.

I do admit there is a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum is women who become madly in love with these evil men to the point of stalking them, and at the other end is women who just secretly fantasize about having sex with them, but in public will pretend that they detest them. But all women feel an attraction to evil men.

Women don't respect good men, they detest them, or to be more exact, their pussies detest them. The more evil a man is, the more wet he makes a woman. Whether she's afraid of him or not.

Women are experts in compartmentalization. This is a psychological term that describes the act of disscoiation oneself from thoughts or feelings that would normally be upsetting and focusing on an experience that they wouldn't participate in if the blocked out thoughts and feelings were present. This is why a woman can have sex with an evil man, even though she is aware of the evil acts that he commits.

Credit to SimpDetector from Nairaland. This deserves far more views.
@Vermilioncore

 

[Big White Cuck]

Wtf are you talking about? Women are amazing.

 

[Ryan]

Wtf are you talking about? Women are amazing.

Big White Cuck
Bronze
Joined Dec 5, 2023



Reported for foid worship

 

[Deleted member 21345]

Good and evil are mostly a cope there's only strength and weakness

They're attracted to strength which they should be

 

[TheLastLaugh]

Good and evil are mostly a cope there's only strength and weakness

They're attracted to strength which they should be

Correct. There isn't actually right or wrong. Everyone is just acting in their own best interests as they see fit. Morality is a social construct to control the population. For example, the government will demonize and punish those who commit violence yet they themselves are allowed to do it, and its mass genocide that allowed them to come into power in the first place.

You can't blame women for being attracted to evil men like serial killers. Women especially are material creatures who believe what's in front of their face right now. Nice/normal guys signify that they are weak, boring, stupid, subservient drones incapable of combat. Killers prove that they are truly strong men who will do whatever it takes to win, and how is that not exciting/interesting?

 

[Deleted member 21688]

As a Muslim, I reject this theory.

 

[SA7]

dnr, but it's true

evil = more chances of survival

 

[future slavic chad]

dnr, if it dont come natural you'll just look like a try hard asshole

 

[fuxkdakikez]

women are demons. of course they are

 

[horizontallytall]

Bullshitan ,just be tall ,have aperfectly optimized hormones level, be high iq and u wonr need help of psychology to understand women or world , these type of views will make u rope believe me

 

[forevermirin]

are women attracted to a guy who beats his dog with a baseball bat for fun? that's evil...

 

[Xtra]

Credit to SimpDetector from Nairaland. This deserves far more views.
@Vermilioncore

Gigacope thread. I see harmless short feminine soycucks with gfs all the time, I’m 100x more dark triad than these people but I’m alone.

 

[TheLastLaugh]

dnr, if it dont come natural you'll just look like a try hard asshole

True, but if you actually saw life today for what it is it vs what its supposed to be it would absolutely come naturally.

You have to understand that nothing about the modern world is natural at all, in fact natural selection doesn't even take place anymore. There are so many people alive today that are so weak and useless its obvious they wouldn't survive in any other time period than the soft modern world where no life-threatening struggles exist anymore. The mere fact that they are even alive is unnatural in itself. Its natural to be killing, raping, looting, pillaging. This is how life has always been. The only reason you think this is wrong now is society tells you it is and you can't think for yourself.

What I'm trying to say is yes its cringe to pretend to be a bad guy to get some pussy, but if you weren't a normie and actually understood the way life is supposed to be you'd realize its absolutely natural to be killing people. Society calling killers evil is their way of demonizing real men who are in tune with their true nature. The only men who love this modern society are pathetically weak guys who need its protection. Violence is such a core part of being human, and the weak men who are allowed to survive today demonize these "evil" men who would slaughter them in any other time period.

If you are a man who isn't good/capable of killing other men you simply are NOT a real man, and on a subconscious level women know this and are repulsed by such weakness.

 

[autistic_tendencies]

Chad can act however he wants

 

[future slavic chad]

True, but if you actually saw life today for what it is it vs what its supposed to be it would absolutely come naturally.

You have to understand that nothing about the modern world is natural at all, in fact natural selection doesn't even take place anymore. There are so many people alive today that are so weak and useless its obvious they wouldn't survive in any other time period than the soft modern world where no life-threatening struggles exist anymore. The mere fact that they are even alive is unnatural in itself. Its natural to be killing, raping, looting, pillaging. This is how life has always been. The only reason you think this is wrong now is society tells you it is and you can't think for yourself.

What I'm trying to say is yes its cringe to pretend to be a bad guy to get some pussy, but if you weren't a normie and actually understood the way life is supposed to be you'd realize its absolutely natural to be killing people. Society calling killers evil is their way of demonizing real men who are in tune with their true nature. The only men who love this modern society are pathetically weak guys who need its protection. Violence is such a core part of being human, and the weak men who are allowed to survive today demonize these "evil" men who would slaughter them in any other time period.

If you are a man who isn't good/capable of killing other men you simply are NOT a real man, and on a subconscious level women know this and are repulsed by such weakness.

im not tryna mess with the law so its irrelevant info and theres no anarchy happening anytime soon

 

[TheLastLaugh]

are women attracted to a guy who beats his dog with a baseball bat for fun? that's evil...

Think about how many single mothers today will say they want a nice, good guy who will be a great father to their bastard child. Now consider the fact that the demographic for child abusers is comprised almost entirely of women's new partners (not the child's father).
What you'll notice is that although they could definitely find some nice guy who would be a great stepdad, they will seek out men who beat their kid like a punching bag. They will complain about how awful he is, but ultimately they will stay/keep going back and allow their child to continue suffering the abuse for countless years. This is a prime example of why you look at someone's actions rather than their words.

Logically it seems unfathomable that a woman who is an animal lover herself would be attracted to a sadistic animal abuser, but when you look at the obvious example of single mothers choosing guys who abuse their children while claiming to want the opposite, is it really that farfetched after all?

 

[Deleted member 52057]

Wtf are you talking about? Women are amazing.

name checks out

 

[Amexmaxx]

This why women shouldn’t have control over who has sex with them.

 

[TheLastLaugh]

This why women shouldn’t have control over who has sex with them.

True, but its pointless to complain about things you can't change, which is all the manosphere really does. Adapt or perish. A man can figure out why he's pussyless, say women should do this or that, and he's probably right but it won't fix his situation. Or a man can just change for the worse and easily fix all of his female problems. Besides, if someone actually knew enough about how life really works, and not this delusional blackpilled enlightenment, they would naturally be a cynical, narcissistic piece of shit who excels with women.

 

[9cel]

Good and evil are mostly a cope there's only strength and weakness

They're attracted to strength which they should be

high testosterone makes a man more attractive. and also makes a man more likely to be violent and display less moral and evil traits

 

[Itsmelurking505]

high testosterone makes a man more attractive. and also makes a man more likely to be violent and display less moral and evil traits

Ehh yea and na think about it attractive people more than likely will be less aggressive due to the sucess they have
Like its just natural for them
But if chad ever snapped we could have another britsh empire lol

 

[9cel]

Ehh yea and na think about it attractive people more than likely will be less aggressive due to the sucess they have
Like its just natural for them
But if chad ever snapped we could have another britsh empire lol

they are more prone to risk taking activities, stealing, impulsiveness for example if someone tried to fight them they would 100% do it and this is seen most in teenage years with them stealing without a thought and exhibiting less empathy also on the micro level they wont care much about peoples feelings and when you get attractive guy with bad upbrining you get meeks

 

[Eternal_]

Good and evil are mostly a cope there's only strength and weakness

They're attracted to strength which they should be

Good and evil is not a cope. What are you talking about lol.

 

[Deleted member 21345]

Good and evil is not a cope. What are you talking about lol.

Didn't you post about nuking a ton of people lol. Might makes right

 

[XtrovertNTnormalfag]

Incel cope.
Humans have certin amount of testosterone which is ideal, higher than this amount is not better.

 

[Eternal_]

Didn't you post about nuking a ton of people lol. Might makes right

I don’t recall posting about nuking anyone but anyways, I do enjoy that quote.

The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must

 

[Runawaytictac]

Girls act more submissive when I act like an asshole but there’s also some girls who don’t seem to like it like the others

 

[Itsmelurking505]

they are more prone to risk taking activities, stealing, impulsiveness for example if someone tried to fight them they would 100% do it and this is seen most in teenage years with them stealing without a thought and exhibiting less empathy also on the micro level they wont care much about peoples feelings and when you get attractive guy with bad upbrining you get meeks

Ain't it funny girls tell you to care be compassionate to watch what you say and do
But then you realize they just want to control you

 

[Son of gigachad]

a few hints to the evolutionary truth spread all over this thread, but several mistakes and oversimplifications as well.

the objective of life is to have kids and pass on your genetic lineage, even if some people of both genders have opted out of this since ancient times for several good reasons, and then some were of course, incels. even turbomanlet monks with a micropenis can potentially achieve peace of mind and a meaningful existence or so it would seem for sure. therefore exceptions exist to even the most fundamental rule of nature, its never black or white.
but as far as reproductive success goes, there is intrasexual competition, and then there is intersexual competition. modern humans have been proven to engage in both.
extrapolating this to ideas of "good and evil" and whether females subconciously select for this against even the most basic human decency, if you live in a village of 100 men and 100 women, and u brutally butcher the other 99 dudes with an axe, theoretically you should have a harem of fertile and willing women left all to yourself for your choosing. in practise however, why would you have an axe or any kind of weaponry that no one else has? why wouldnt some other member of the tribe who is more agile or big than you interrupt your killing spree and kill you instead? if one has ever read evolutionary biology, something OP clearly hasnt, he is familiar with the term "tit for tat" meaning "the infliction of an injury or insult in return for one that one has suffered."
in other terms, being a complete degenerate who never plays fair or abides by any kind of social structure or set of rules agreed upon unless its in his own best interest at the time isnt just "him being a big no good meanie" - its inherently unsustainable if entirely unbalanced, darktriadmaxxing is at best a bell shaped curve with diminishing returns. almost all serial killers serial rapists and so eventually get caught and punished and their capacity to spread their seed terminated, who cares if they receive love letters in jail while they rot or wait to get euthanized.
the fact that the assholes that rule us often seem to get away with it, like the bankers did for example after they decimated the economy back in 2007, doesnt change the fact that its something rare and even evolutionarily new to hoard this much power, and therefore unlikely for it to have had the time to be evolutionarily selected. yes, genghis khan has bred more women than a thousand chads combined at least, but striving to become a warlord to end all warlords is , you guessed it, an unsustainable mating strategy, even more so in this rapidly shifting day and age. kings that were unfair and unjust in the way they rule, were deemed as tyrants and were more often that not assasinated and overthrown if they didnt find a way to force staying in power.

this is a direct result of the fact that we are social creatures, and as social creatures, agressiveness and selfishness can of course be rewarding yes, but so can cooperation kindness and generosity, if not more so, and this can also help you climb socioeconomic hiearchies more than just threatening to kill everyone who stands in your way ( though i guess escobar did it - for some time at least, as previouslt explained)
all this has been proven by studies showing that testosterone, the principle hormone behind reproductive behavior seeking, can fuel both pro social and anti social behavior based on the context, and can increase "good" behavior, though the term is indeed mostly incorrect.
narcissism, machiavellianism and psycopathy can absolutely be deemed as attractive qualities by many women at a subconcious level - propably because they signal some level of competence and courage to act in a way that protects your own tribe, versus the absolutely cucked beta trait that is passiveness. being a good kind person doesnt mean that you arent capable of danger - it means you have it under control. popular paradigms in female erotic literature such as "beauty and the beast" verify this further - the male is dominant and capable of danger and assertiveness over his territory and resources, but he does not harm the people close to him, only those that endanger those he loves. if that disney princess walked in on the beast eating the decaying corpses of the castle maids in the middle of a sacrificial ritual, you can bet that getting railed would be the last thing on her mind as she runs away traumatized. if anything truly turns her on, its her capacity to tame him.
TLDR - high effort explanation as to why OP is ultimately evolutionarily incorrect or only half correct at best, cannot be condensed in a single sentence for ADHDcels unfortunately.

 

[TheLastLaugh]

a few hints to the evolutionary truth spread all over this thread, but several mistakes and oversimplifications as well.

the objective of life is to have kids and pass on your genetic lineage, even if some people of both genders have opted out of this since ancient times for several good reasons, and then some were of course, incels. even turbomanlet monks with a micropenis can potentially achieve peace of mind and a meaningful existence or so it would seem for sure. therefore exceptions exist to even the most fundamental rule of nature, its never black or white.
but as far as reproductive success goes, there is intrasexual competition, and then there is intersexual competition. modern humans have been proven to engage in both.
extrapolating this to ideas of "good and evil" and whether females subconciously select for this against even the most basic human decency, if you live in a village of 100 men and 100 women, and u brutally butcher the other 99 dudes with an axe, theoretically you should have a harem of fertile and willing women left all to yourself for your choosing. in practise however, why would you have an axe or any kind of weaponry that no one else has? why wouldnt some other member of the tribe who is more agile or big than you interrupt your killing spree and kill you instead? if one has ever read evolutionary biology, something OP clearly hasnt, he is familiar with the term "tit for tat" meaning "the infliction of an injury or insult in return for one that one has suffered."
in other terms, being a complete degenerate who never plays fair or abides by any kind of social structure or set of rules agreed upon unless its in his own best interest at the time isnt just "him being a big no good meanie" - its inherently unsustainable if entirely unbalanced, darktriadmaxxing is at best a bell shaped curve with diminishing returns. almost all serial killers serial rapists and so eventually get caught and punished and their capacity to spread their seed terminated, who cares if they receive love letters in jail while they rot or wait to get euthanized.
the fact that the assholes that rule us often seem to get away with it, like the bankers did for example after they decimated the economy back in 2007, doesnt change the fact that its something rare and even evolutionarily new to hoard this much power, and therefore unlikely for it to have had the time to be evolutionarily selected. yes, genghis khan has bred more women than a thousand chads combined at least, but striving to become a warlord to end all warlords is , you guessed it, an unsustainable mating strategy, even more so in this rapidly shifting day and age. kings that were unfair and unjust in the way they rule, were deemed as tyrants and were more often that not assasinated and overthrown if they didnt find a way to force staying in power.

this is a direct result of the fact that we are social creatures, and as social creatures, agressiveness and selfishness can of course be rewarding yes, but so can cooperation kindness and generosity, if not more so, and this can also help you climb socioeconomic hiearchies more than just threatening to kill everyone who stands in your way ( though i guess escobar did it - for some time at least, as previouslt explained)
all this has been proven by studies showing that testosterone, the principle hormone behind reproductive behavior seeking, can fuel both pro social and anti social behavior based on the context, and can increase "good" behavior, though the term is indeed mostly incorrect.
narcissism, machiavellianism and psycopathy can absolutely be deemed as attractive qualities by many women at a subconcious level - propably because they signal some level of competence and courage to act in a way that protects your own tribe, versus the absolutely cucked beta trait that is passiveness. being a good kind person doesnt mean that you arent capable of danger - it means you have it under control. popular paradigms in female erotic literature such as "beauty and the beast" verify this further - the male is dominant and capable of danger and assertiveness over his territory and resources, but he does not harm the people close to him, only those that endanger those he loves. if that disney princess walked in on the beast eating the decaying corpses of the castle maids in the middle of a sacrificial ritual, you can bet that getting railed would be the last thing on her mind as she runs away traumatized. if anything truly turns her on, its her capacity to tame him.
TLDR - high effort explanation as to why OP is ultimately evolutionarily incorrect or only half correct at best, cannot be condensed in a single sentence for ADHDcels unfortunately.

This would've been a lot easier to breakdown with proper grammar & formatting but I digress.

Women have a natural propensity towards evil and this is not up for debate. Eve had everything she could ever want but chose to rebel with the serpent instead. The purpose of the Great Flood/Noah's Ark was to wipe out the Nephilim, giant unnatural abominations murdering everyone as a result of women choosing to fornicate with the fallen angels. Biblical references aside, every ancient culture in civilization controlled women because they understood their true nature. They knew allowing them free reign would inevitably destroy society as they naturally gravitate towards self-destruction and reject all that is good.

What you need to understand about the modern world is that there is nothing, and I mean nothing natural about it whatsoever. Look around with your own eyes at the general population and it'll be painfully obvious that most people shouldn't be alive, meaning they're completely incapable of surviving without the modern government to take care of all their needs. Violence and war are a natural part of being human and the complete lack of it is such an unnatural phenomenon in and of itself. To hate violence and worship the police state like most people do proves you are weak and need it to survive (defending Matrix reference), while defiantly bucking the system signifies you are strong enough to survive without it. Legality & morality aside, how could you not look down upon a nice, moral, good guy who gets dominated/manipulated/abused and clearly wouldn't survive in combat? Likewise, how could you not fear & respect a psychopath who is the one manipulating, abusing, doing whatever is necessary to dominate and succeed? Attraction is mostly subconscious and women easily pick up on this stuff.

I agree that the obvious irony of women wanting serial killers if they can't have them since they're all rotting in jail for life or on death row. It doesn't make sense as a mating strategy since you wouldn't be able to effectively cash in on the notoriety anyway. However, that wasn't the point made in the original post. The fact of the matter is that this is still what women truly desire. The modern man is treated so badly by the modern woman because they're so far off from what a real, strong man is supposed to look like. You can't undo biology. Women are attracted to what is natural on a primal, subconscious level. Violent, rebellious men are far more attuned to our true nature than docile, subservient men.

To address your last point, yes indeed we are social creatures who do best in tribes in which everyone works together and has a purpose, rather than just seeing every other man as competition and trying to kill them. Obviously this no longer exists, but you can't just pick and choose one problem without looking at the situation as a whole. The fact is there is nothing natural about human life now, the world has never been more fucked up, and unfortunately we've never been more powerless as an individual to change it. However, no matter how perverse modern life becomes you can't undo our hardwired biology that women have a natural, subconscious attraction to evil/violence and a natural disdain for all that is good.

 

[Son of gigachad]

This would've been a lot easier to breakdown with proper grammar & formatting but I digress.

Women have a natural propensity towards evil and this is not up for debate. Eve had everything she could ever want but chose to rebel with the serpent instead. The purpose of the Great Flood/Noah's Ark was to wipe out the Nephilim, giant unnatural abominations murdering everyone as a result of women choosing to fornicate with the fallen angels. Biblical references aside, every ancient culture in civilization controlled women because they understood their true nature. They knew allowing them free reign would inevitably destroy society as they naturally gravitate towards self-destruction and reject all that is good.

What you need to understand about the modern world is that there is nothing, and I mean nothing natural about it whatsoever. Look around with your own eyes at the general population and it'll be painfully obvious that most people shouldn't be alive, meaning they're completely incapable of surviving without the modern government to take care of all their needs. Violence and war are a natural part of being human and the complete lack of it is such an unnatural phenomenon in and of itself. To hate violence and worship the police state like most people do proves you are weak and need it to survive (defending Matrix reference), while defiantly bucking the system signifies you are strong enough to survive without it. Legality & morality aside, how could you not look down upon a nice, moral, good guy who gets dominated/manipulated/abused and clearly wouldn't survive in combat? Likewise, how could you not fear & respect a psychopath who is the one manipulating, abusing, doing whatever is necessary to dominate and succeed? Attraction is mostly subconscious and women easily pick up on this stuff.

I agree that the obvious irony of women wanting serial killers if they can't have them since they're all rotting in jail for life or on death row. It doesn't make sense as a mating strategy since you wouldn't be able to effectively cash in on the notoriety anyway. However, that wasn't the point made in the original post. The fact of the matter is that this is still what women truly desire. The modern man is treated so badly by the modern woman because they're so far off from what a real, strong man is supposed to look like. You can't undo biology. Women are attracted to what is natural on a primal, subconscious level. Violent, rebellious men are far more attuned to our true nature than docile, subservient men.

To address your last point, yes indeed we are social creatures who do best in tribes in which everyone works together and has a purpose, rather than just seeing every other man as competition and trying to kill them. Obviously this no longer exists, but you can't just pick and choose one problem without looking at the situation as a whole. The fact is there is nothing natural about human life now, the world has never been more fucked up, and unfortunately we've never been more powerless as an individual to change it. However, no matter how perverse modern life becomes you can't undo our hardwired biology that women have a natural, subconscious attraction to evil/violence and a natural disdain for all that is good.

i wanna give a high effort reply to this cause you make some good points and we agree on quite a bit but i cant today, ill do my best to remember.

 

[_MVP_]

True

 

[itorroella9]

water is wet

 

[robtical]

a few hints to the evolutionary truth spread all over this thread, but several mistakes and oversimplifications as well.

the objective of life is to have kids and pass on your genetic lineage, even if some people of both genders have opted out of this since ancient times for several good reasons, and then some were of course, incels. even turbomanlet monks with a micropenis can potentially achieve peace of mind and a meaningful existence or so it would seem for sure. therefore exceptions exist to even the most fundamental rule of nature, its never black or white.
but as far as reproductive success goes, there is intrasexual competition, and then there is intersexual competition. modern humans have been proven to engage in both.
extrapolating this to ideas of "good and evil" and whether females subconciously select for this against even the most basic human decency, if you live in a village of 100 men and 100 women, and u brutally butcher the other 99 dudes with an axe, theoretically you should have a harem of fertile and willing women left all to yourself for your choosing. in practise however, why would you have an axe or any kind of weaponry that no one else has? why wouldnt some other member of the tribe who is more agile or big than you interrupt your killing spree and kill you instead? if one has ever read evolutionary biology, something OP clearly hasnt, he is familiar with the term "tit for tat" meaning "the infliction of an injury or insult in return for one that one has suffered."
in other terms, being a complete degenerate who never plays fair or abides by any kind of social structure or set of rules agreed upon unless its in his own best interest at the time isnt just "him being a big no good meanie" - its inherently unsustainable if entirely unbalanced, darktriadmaxxing is at best a bell shaped curve with diminishing returns. almost all serial killers serial rapists and so eventually get caught and punished and their capacity to spread their seed terminated, who cares if they receive love letters in jail while they rot or wait to get euthanized.
the fact that the assholes that rule us often seem to get away with it, like the bankers did for example after they decimated the economy back in 2007, doesnt change the fact that its something rare and even evolutionarily new to hoard this much power, and therefore unlikely for it to have had the time to be evolutionarily selected. yes, genghis khan has bred more women than a thousand chads combined at least, but striving to become a warlord to end all warlords is , you guessed it, an unsustainable mating strategy, even more so in this rapidly shifting day and age. kings that were unfair and unjust in the way they rule, were deemed as tyrants and were more often that not assasinated and overthrown if they didnt find a way to force staying in power.

this is a direct result of the fact that we are social creatures, and as social creatures, agressiveness and selfishness can of course be rewarding yes, but so can cooperation kindness and generosity, if not more so, and this can also help you climb socioeconomic hiearchies more than just threatening to kill everyone who stands in your way ( though i guess escobar did it - for some time at least, as previouslt explained)
all this has been proven by studies showing that testosterone, the principle hormone behind reproductive behavior seeking, can fuel both pro social and anti social behavior based on the context, and can increase "good" behavior, though the term is indeed mostly incorrect.
narcissism, machiavellianism and psycopathy can absolutely be deemed as attractive qualities by many women at a subconcious level - propably because they signal some level of competence and courage to act in a way that protects your own tribe, versus the absolutely cucked beta trait that is passiveness. being a good kind person doesnt mean that you arent capable of danger - it means you have it under control. popular paradigms in female erotic literature such as "beauty and the beast" verify this further - the male is dominant and capable of danger and assertiveness over his territory and resources, but he does not harm the people close to him, only those that endanger those he loves. if that disney princess walked in on the beast eating the decaying corpses of the castle maids in the middle of a sacrificial ritual, you can bet that getting railed would be the last thing on her mind as she runs away traumatized. if anything truly turns her on, its her capacity to tame him.
TLDR - high effort explanation as to why OP is ultimately evolutionarily incorrect or only half correct at best, cannot be condensed in a single sentence for ADHDcels unfortunately.

Its just adaptability. Figure out win conditions and adapt to them as fast as possible and most effectively.

 

[horizontallytall]

a few hints to the evolutionary truth spread all over this thread, but several mistakes and oversimplifications as well.

the objective of life is to have kids and pass on your genetic lineage, even if some people of both genders have opted out of this since ancient times for several good reasons, and then some were of course, incels. even turbomanlet monks with a micropenis can potentially achieve peace of mind and a meaningful existence or so it would seem for sure. therefore exceptions exist to even the most fundamental rule of nature, its never black or white.
but as far as reproductive success goes, there is intrasexual competition, and then there is intersexual competition. modern humans have been proven to engage in both.
extrapolating this to ideas of "good and evil" and whether females subconciously select for this against even the most basic human decency, if you live in a village of 100 men and 100 women, and u brutally butcher the other 99 dudes with an axe, theoretically you should have a harem of fertile and willing women left all to yourself for your choosing. in practise however, why would you have an axe or any kind of weaponry that no one else has? why wouldnt some other member of the tribe who is more agile or big than you interrupt your killing spree and kill you instead? if one has ever read evolutionary biology, something OP clearly hasnt, he is familiar with the term "tit for tat" meaning "the infliction of an injury or insult in return for one that one has suffered."
in other terms, being a complete degenerate who never plays fair or abides by any kind of social structure or set of rules agreed upon unless its in his own best interest at the time isnt just "him being a big no good meanie" - its inherently unsustainable if entirely unbalanced, darktriadmaxxing is at best a bell shaped curve with diminishing returns. almost all serial killers serial rapists and so eventually get caught and punished and their capacity to spread their seed terminated, who cares if they receive love letters in jail while they rot or wait to get euthanized.
the fact that the assholes that rule us often seem to get away with it, like the bankers did for example after they decimated the economy back in 2007, doesnt change the fact that its something rare and even evolutionarily new to hoard this much power, and therefore unlikely for it to have had the time to be evolutionarily selected. yes, genghis khan has bred more women than a thousand chads combined at least, but striving to become a warlord to end all warlords is , you guessed it, an unsustainable mating strategy, even more so in this rapidly shifting day and age. kings that were unfair and unjust in the way they rule, were deemed as tyrants and were more often that not assasinated and overthrown if they didnt find a way to force staying in power.

this is a direct result of the fact that we are social creatures, and as social creatures, agressiveness and selfishness can of course be rewarding yes, but so can cooperation kindness and generosity, if not more so, and this can also help you climb socioeconomic hiearchies more than just threatening to kill everyone who stands in your way ( though i guess escobar did it - for some time at least, as previouslt explained)
all this has been proven by studies showing that testosterone, the principle hormone behind reproductive behavior seeking, can fuel both pro social and anti social behavior based on the context, and can increase "good" behavior, though the term is indeed mostly incorrect.
narcissism, machiavellianism and psycopathy can absolutely be deemed as attractive qualities by many women at a subconcious level - propably because they signal some level of competence and courage to act in a way that protects your own tribe, versus the absolutely cucked beta trait that is passiveness. being a good kind person doesnt mean that you arent capable of danger - it means you have it under control. popular paradigms in female erotic literature such as "beauty and the beast" verify this further - the male is dominant and capable of danger and assertiveness over his territory and resources, but he does not harm the people close to him, only those that endanger those he loves. if that disney princess walked in on the beast eating the decaying corpses of the castle maids in the middle of a sacrificial ritual, you can bet that getting railed would be the last thing on her mind as she runs away traumatized. if anything truly turns her on, its her capacity to tame him.
TLDR - high effort explanation as to why OP is ultimately evolutionarily incorrect or only half correct at best, cannot be condensed in a single sentence for ADHDcels unfortunately.

Very great reply bro, thanks for great explanatiom and way of putting it

 

[Kamui]

 

[Skywalker]

Bullshitan ,just be tall ,have aperfectly optimized hormones level, be high iq and u wonr need help of psychology to understand women or world , these type of views will make u rope believe me

+good fayce and yeah, OP is just low IQ

evil/ not evil doesnt matter at all in attraction
Hybristophilia is a huge meme..............................and Dahmer, Ramirez ,Bundy, Meeks were all good looking men ........not hard to understand lol

 

[IntelligentCel]

As a Muslim, I reject this theory.

As a highly-intelligent mind, I'm telling you the theory is correct.

Women love male animals, not some civilized soy boy.

Do you actually realize that gang boys have a higher body count than you will ever have?

In fact, gangs in Mexico and Brazil, the people who kidnap people, kill them with machete and record everything with a low-quality video camera, have a much higher body count that a civilized boy student who is a good boy, isn't violent and respects everyone.