why is this bad?
- Home
- Board: /pol/ - Politically Incorrect
- Reading: why is this bad?
why is this bad?
>>70720993
It's bad for fat stormweenies
>>70720993
That bottom part of males stops reproducing and working for society, progress stagnates. The financial elite get an excuse for replacing the population with cheap immigrant labour that retards believe.
Of course, the ever accelerating advance in technology and waifubots will certainly change things, but history shows us, as Freud claimed, that societies with strict monogamy and monoamory are more succesful than ones without.
The original study was by J.D. Unwin and the niggerbird speaks about it, but he shills his videos enough on /pol/, so I'll link this text instead.
https://ethikapolitika.org/2014/08/19/civilizations-sex/
>>70721235
Fat stormweenies could contribute well to society. Arguably a lot more than feminists in gender studies.
>>70720993
>citation needed
>>70720993
The bottom makes turn into degenerate trannies or supreme gentlemen
>>70720993
it's not.
>>70721532
That's fine, they'll go extinct.
This is about survival of the fittest.
>>70721367
the bottom part of male are fat autist losers that dont deserve to pass on their dna
>>70720993
This is such bullshit since it's always been the same. All the sexual revolution did was make it public.
>>70720993
losers will argue that they deserve a woman for being alive
sexual revolution is the same as natural selection
>>70721641
Except they're probably not. Genetics suggest that the notable majority of human ancestors that managed to breed were women.
>Shen at al. (2000) observed an approximately 5:1 ratio of autosomal to NRY variability in their global survey of nucleotide variation. This observation differs significantly from neutral expectations based on a one-to-one breeding ratio but is extremely close to the expected results given a breeding ratio of two females per male (Hedrick 2000). Thus, a simple skew in the human breeding ratio may be sufficient to explain the low levels of variation and recent TMRCAs that have been observed for the human NRY.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/11/2047.full
>>70721674
>This is such bullshit since it's always been the same. All the sexual revolution did was make it public.
No. The sexual revolution and feminism made this once again reality, as they have done countless times in past societies. Given free choice, women always choose to mate with the top ~40% of men and would rather share those men with other women than choose from the worse men.
It's essentially a choice between social productivity and progress and women's rights. Though it matters far less now that technology is advancing. Human lives will be longer, artificial reproduction will become a possibility, strong AI and waifubots will be real, as well as superhuman cyborgs. Though Western society will probably fall and might be superceded by the Chinese before that happens.
>>70722105
>It's essentially a choice between social productivity and progress and women's rights
Social productivity and progress or women's rights*
Monogamous religions were the one true beta uprising.
>>70720993
the men those women are selecting are useless niggers
>>70722172
>The beta rise up
>Create the strongest most functional societies on Earth
Wew.
>>70720993
It's not bad because people now get to be with who they want to be with. If no one wants to be with you than tough fucking luck, just better yourself bitch.
>>70722287
>the men those women are selecting are useless niggers
This
Bear in mind, what actually qualifies as the best and what a woman perceives as the best are two drastically different things
>Pic related
>Not only relevant to the comment but relevant to the entire thread
>>70722553
gave me a nice chuckle, cheers
>>70720993
Surprised nobody brought up social darwinism and those trendy "R-types" ideas that all right wingers parrot lately.
Seems like this is the only legitimate place to put them, and you forgot.
>>70722910
>R-types
?
>>70722993
Recreational strategies as exhibited among animals, being oversimplified to two categories - the liberal spray&pray, having many kids and hopefully some make it, and the devoted fitness strategy, having few kids, but investing much more time and resource into them.
Recently right wing blogs and youtubers have been comparing themselves to wolves, while the liberals are clearly rats, you know the drill.
>>70723111
The "liberals" are more like chimps though. Sexual promiscuity in women and maternal care for the children, even though human growth is highly dependent on having parents of both sexes, or at the very least a male role model.
>>70722105
In the grand scheme of things, who does this hurt? Doesn't hurt the top 40%, they're getting to pass on their genes. Doesn't hurt the women, they're still getting pregnant. Doesn't hurt the offspring, they'll inherit traits from the best men.
The only downside is that a bunch of men go tfw no gf, and fuck them to be honest. I'd rather they didn't pass on whatever kept them from hooking up.
>>70723990
Literally what this image answers.
>>70722753
When the 60% bottom stop working for society, society stops working. The top 40, the "alphas" and whoever are close enough to that cannot support society on their own, nor does the lot of them include the nerds, the scientists, the very people responsible for the advancement of humanity.
>they'll inherit traits from the best men.
What are these traits and why are the men the best? The same things that made a man a success and popular with women in the stone-age are not the same things that make a man a success in modern society.
>>70720993
"Hook up game" is not productive for society. In the right case majority of male population would be forced by sexual desire to invest in hook up game but they will not gain from it . It is arms race of peacock tails and this is the waste.
STOP REPLYING TO BAIT THREADS.
THIS THREAD HAS BEEN REPOSTED SEVERAL TIMES DAILY FOR A WEEK.
FUCKING STOP BUMPING IT.
>>70722105
>Given free choice, women always choose to mate with the top ~40% of men and would rather share those men with other women than choose from the worse men.
If only. With sexual revolution these 20% have no social obligation and possibly of reproduction with each woman they mate. This sex serves only hedonistic recreational purposes. It is not real harems.
>>70720993
Is natural selection so it's good. Only the betas cry because of this
However let me tell you that the bottom ugly girls also fuck the bottom ugly males
>>70724731
True. It's even worse than the natural situation where every one of them would atleast conceive children.
>>70724856
So we are going to have all these good looking people. Then some under class ghouls that live underground?
>>70722857
Lmao nice
I swear, this thread is fucking depressing. I'll never be a Chad, and I'm pretty much fucked.
Everything is in fact so primitive, that's disgusting and makes me want to puke.
>>70725293
Are you ugly or just beta? If you're not really ugly, start lifting and excercising. Get a good education and a proper job.
>>70721532
>The bottom makes turn into degenerate trannies or supreme gentlemen
How exactly is it bad that genetically inferior men aren't breeding?
It's the opposite. Men in the past didn't pass on their genes, while ugly men today are more likely to find a partner.
>>70720993
I'd go through why initially this is bad, but >>70721367 already did.
To expand on that point, the problem with this 80-40 ratio is two things, the ruining of the lives of the betas and the growth of single mothers, whom will produce either more hapless betas or violent alphas. This model produces an excess of men that are reproductively useless and so become over time more prone to crime, rape, or non productivity. The biggest hurdle western civilisation faces is rebuilding the nuclear family while women are sexually 'liberated.' Thses women, now unchaste, pursue the top 40% of men, most of whom don't want commitment or a relationship. These women attempt to snare them with pregnancy, and manage to at least get money out of most.
A SOLUTION
We can't really go back on this trend, as the whole sexual liberation meme is too strong in society to win against. What we can do is the following, and people are beginning to do this.
1: slut shame.
people naturally do this, and so we just need to ridicule the feminists and idiots who try to reverse a natural tendency.
2. Elevation of moral standards
Young men need to refuse to partake in the sexual pursuit of these sluts, and go for more traditional girls, meaning over time these women will change the behaviour still attempting to go after the top 40 but with each of these men only taking one wife the remaining 40% of women will have to settle.
3. Legal custodial abortion for men and removal of welfare for single mothers
Considering that a lot of these women can get men or the government to pay for the children produced by their bad life choices, if we offer men a legal chance to opt out of fatherhood many of these men being trapped by these harpies will be freed. The loss of a safety net in the form of welfare means that any children they produce they will have to raise themselves. Over time being a single mother will be disinsentivised and women will be less promiscuous considering the consequences.
>>70725821
Because if 60% of men in a society decide to opt out, productivity and population decreases. Anyway, do you really want women deciding which men get to reproduce?
>>70720993
Its bullshit. The world has always been the right
>>70720993
It's not.
>>70725821
For a whole lot of men why they keep on working and putting their full effort is because they do it for their families. The brand new system leaves a whole fucking lot of men without children so they don't see any point in... well, life in general. Guess how much these people are going to pay taxes. Guess what happens when tax money runs out. Guess what happens when these men dgaf about anything anymore.
>>70720993
20% of women never fug
>>70726189
>do you really want men deciding which women get to reproduce?
>>70726189
I suspect they are deciding unconsciously. Their wombs reproduce some percent of new slaves/betas to support population. They're like insects. I always suspected it.
>>70726142
Part of the problem is other Men. I've had guys I though were my friends. I'm just stating to date someone. She wants to met my friends. They met her and then start trying to fuck her.
>>70720993
This is not bad it's good. It means all the weak genes (autistics, social retards and uglies) get cleansed from the gene pool
>>70724856
>>70725821
It's not "natural selection" when that selection is being artificially controlled. There is nothing natural about this system. Negative traits are actually being emphasized and bred into this system due to modern society's distortion of human behavior. That's why the rate of mental illness and self-destruction in the population is skyrocketing
the ones breeding are not actually fit to breed, but society buoys them out of a false sense of egalitarianism and liberalism
>>70721235
Are you that autistic dude from Massachusetts who shitposts on pol in some sad attempt to sway opinion. The same guy who thinks that incorporating weenie in an insult is somehow better than faggot.
>>70726439
Yes?
>>70726530
This
It's artificially controlled so politicians can retain power by putting them into a cradle to grave welfare system. People propagating irresponsibly means more voters via dependence on welfare.
>>70726449
That's true, but like I say people need to elevate their moral standards, and refuse to do that. Most friends I know wouldn't do that, but the exception doesn't excuse the rule.
>>70720993
It's a model that's obsolete in 2016
Any man who can hold a job down can provide excellent shelter and food security for a potential family
But it is nature and human beings are still Stone Age animals biologically
The internet and personal transportation really brought frmale hypergamy which was already there into full force
>>70726522
>End result is a feministic, dysfunctional society full of beautiful people that gets conquered by its neighbours
>>70720993
Why is top tier Stacy not breeding?
>>70722857
kek
>>70721481
This is 4chan faggot.
>>70723990
Yeh but a huge % of women / western women won't pass on their genes either
It's a game of chicken to delay settling for the right man
If only 15% of women did not pass on their genes, populations would fall or be forced to accept migrants
Of course women can seek a sperm donor but not all women would voluntarily become single mothers
This scenario is still playing itself out
The true figures in the West of childless western women are masked by immigration
>>70720993
bottom go extinct, top only has sex, left obsesses with superficial qualities, right focuses on superficial qualities to survive, race dies out
>>70726698
no it's not. It's a society full of the most genetically powerful (strongest, smartest, most attractive) people.
Human evolution was exactly like this during it's most rapid period. Females only reproduced with the most genetically superior males.
Society ruined this. It forced females to have only one partner allowing weak males to pass on their genes. The result is modern society with no improvement in human genetics and the advancement of weak genes
>>70726522
No, it means women will have total control over who reproduces and who doesn't.
Women will become more and more superficially selective, ultimately choosing men who won't challenge their feeble world views.
>Power dead even rule
>Leftist politics
>Bending of gender roles
Men who would have otherwise contributed immensely to society will instead lack incentive to do so without a healthy sex life, just because he won't want to be a LGBT rights supporting stay at home dad.
>>70720993
Frame one worked due to the social contract - provisioning to a woman by a man in return to sex and taking care of the children. Shaming and barriers to divorce kept women in check.
Frame 2 just shows women are attracted to (having sex with) the top tier of men, and now they're free to do that. They're not marrying these guys, they're just trading pussy for gifts while they ride the carousel. They jump off in their 30s and marry one of the sex starved betas on the lower rungs while the top tier men keep fucking college age chicks into their 50s.
Both frames are good for women for different reasons. Frame 1 was bad for men who were pushed into marriage by tradition, and then became workhorses. But okay for some men whose wife didn't turn into a bitch.
Frame 2 is better for men in the long run, provided the men are red-pilled - guys to take care of themselves physically and save money and regularly fuck a variety of chicks. AND who never get married to some 30 something whore with baby-rabies.
Frame 2 is bad if you're a beta faggot. But the solution is to stop being such a faggot and learn to play the game to get what you want. No sympathy for the bottom tier if they're wallowing around lonely in the own filth. Do something about it, or stop complaining.
>>70726932
That is caused by monogamy laws and societal pressure. The instant polyamory and polygamy are allowed, those numbers would jump right up. Right now those women who are refusing to marry and mate with the lower men are growing old and realising they can't marry the top 30% of men they used to fuck, so they end up as spinsters.
>>70727107
Too bad history disagrees with you. Strictly monogamous societies have always been the most succesful.
https://ethikapolitika.org/2014/08/19/civilizations-sex/
>It's a society full of the most genetically powerful (strongest, smartest, most attractive) people.
>Strongest
Barring some genetic freaks, strength is 99% about excercise (and steroids).
>smartest
Hah, sure mate. The nerds certainly are more popular than the Chads.
>most attractive
As I said, beautiful people.
>Human evolution was exactly like this during it's most rapid period.
And evolution is pretty much completely worthless in modern society. Natural selection doesn't select for qualities that improve society.
>>70727505
>They jump off in their 30s and marry one of the sex starved betas on the lower rungs
But that's not happening anymore, atleast not as much as it used to and could. A lot of men are distancing themselves from marriage, since it's obviously not worth it anymore and a lot of those women are unwilling to settle with the worse men, men of their own quality. They're so used to riding the Chadcock carousel that they think they're as good as those men are.
Even if the women do settle down, they still have over a 50% chance of divorce, which will inevitably end with any possible children falling under the mother's care and thus they'll be raised by a single mother into a feminized inferior individual.
>>70725429
I'm not ugly. I'm at the very least average.
But I 'm a manlet so I should start exercising. It may actually be the only choice I have, sadly, to get what could be a very average woman.
This frustration is eating me from the inside.
>>70720993
Is there any empirical evidence on that ?
>>70728095
>manlet
GG nice try.
>>70728162
Real life and
>Shen at al. (2000) observed an approximately 5:1 ratio of autosomal to NRY variability in their global survey of nucleotide variation. This observation differs significantly from neutral expectations based on a one-to-one breeding ratio but is extremely close to the expected results given a breeding ratio of two females per male (Hedrick 2000). Thus, a simple skew in the human breeding ratio may be sufficient to explain the low levels of variation and recent TMRCAs that have been observed for the human NRY.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/11/2047.full
>>70720993
>BAAAAAWW IT"S THE FEMENISTS AND DA JOOS FAULT I CAN"T GET LAID!!!!!
Stop frogposting and feelposting on internet, grow some balls you fucking cucks, get fit get a good education get a good job and you will get a good women.
You are plain pathetic.
>>70729646
We're talking about things on a societal scale here, Pedro. Try to keep up.
>>70729692
Why my argument don't apply to a societal scale Pekka?
>>70729792
Because there are ugly people, because there aren't enough good jobs for everyone, nor can everyone afford a good education, nor does everyone have the brains for it.
Neither does everyone have the time or motivation to base their entire life on getting good women. You can hardly fix societal issues just by telling people
>lol faggots just go and do it
>>70720993
I'd be ready to argue that OP's pic is bullshit and that 'Before sexual revolution' was a huge cluster fuck of everyone fucking everyone and that the real 'After sexual revolution' part would look a lot like the "Before sexual revolution" part of OP's pictures.
Reminder that despite what american cultural imperialism and their puritan ideas tries to make you believe, we live in a very malthusian era and social hygiene is well inscribed in everyone's mind. The 'before sexual revolution era' was kinky as fuck, it's weird anyone could think that women nowadays are broken. Just look at the 19th/early 20th century you had :
>educated middle class is a minority
>brothels everywhere where ugly men could fuck top class whores as long as they put the price
>arranged marriages (less and less so as the 19th centuries progresses but still) where ugly women/men could end up married with with top tier men/women
>rapes and war rapes (reminder europe has been a fucking huge battlefield for centuries and western europe is currently living its longest period of peace time)
>women trying to escape their shitty life by fucking anyone who could take them out of their shithole
>loads of incest in the country sides
>people starting their adult life at age 6 and being accomplished men and women at age 16 (less so after labour laws where put in place at the end of the 19th century but many young people would start working at age 13 or so) = you start fucking as soon as you know that it feels good to have your peepee touched by a girl
>no education and even less sexual education. If you wanna have an idea of what it looks like, just look at modern days africa.
cont (1/2)
>>70729792
Also, not nearly enough good women for everyone and most of those women are on the cock carousel until 30, when most of them still think they can marry one from the top 30% despite themselves not being in it.
>>70729987
Then suddenly the educated middle class becomes an overwhelming majority. Sexual """revolution"""" is just middle class women showing their titties but :
>fertility decrease
>the good days when 80% of the population was an homogeneous bunch of poor retards fucking each other are over
>stuck up educated bitches fuck less (all men are still dtf though) it's a fact, even humanitarians think that the best way to reduce Africa's natality rates is to educate women
>nanny state promotes contraception and hygiene (no condom = no ficki)
>rape goes down
>brothels are closed
>arranged marriage disappears
>women study and work to escape their shitty situation instead of fucking like rabbits
>no more wincest
>manchildren start their adult life at 25y/o after long studies
>everyone is afraid of aids and STDs
>long dryspell periods are fine, we have porn
much less kinky shit
(2/2)
>>70729978
>>70730040
>ugly, poor, fat, no motivation lazy cuck can't get laid and pass their failure genes to the next generation
fixed
nothing is wrong with less than half the men getting most of the women. the problem is its the women that select the men and women are ab so fucking lutely horrible a discerning objecting standards. see dan biljewian, dude literally didnt do shit except NOT make stupid decisions and fucking models everyday. if he didnt have 100 mil he'd just be another plain fag hoping that getting /fit/ will get him laid and actually have to work for his social skills instead of having everyone automatically bend over for him
>>70720993
because it means effeminate /pol/ children dont get any pussy.
i find it ironic that it is mostly the "libtards" that are "propagating the white race" while /pol/ kiddies sit here and jerk off to cartoons.
>>70729987
>>70730082
It's more about marriage and relationships than just fucking around and it's mostly about women. Before the sexual revolution a woman who fucked around like modern women would have been branded a whore and been a social pariah. That's the thing. More premarital sexual partners lead to more unstable marriages and monogamy not being forced by society leads to women fucking around with the top men, leaving nothing notable for the 40% bottom males or so, of whom a very large part end up ditching the entire marriage game completely.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3874393/
>>70730483
Except that we're talking about atleast 50% of all men. 50% of men who will now have zero-to-no incentive to improve and work for society. Completely normal men are dropping out of society and are refusing to marry and have children. Rate of births are going down and the political elite are importing shitskins to make up for this and failing miserably.
>>70720993
it's good, for me anyways.
I always considered myself a Beta but most self proclaimed "alpha's" end up sucking on my sloppy #2's
>>70720993
Put little guns in the hands of the single purples on the right and you'll see the problem.
>>70724768
kek nice m8
>>70730944
And is it beneficial for society for a large part of its would-be-productive males to give up and not work for it anymore? All the nerds and autists who could have gotten themselves highly educated to become leaders and progress-makers in their own fields are now instead sitting in their parents' basement, shitposting on 4chan and masturbating to porn?
>>70730483
>>70730966
>Except that we're talking about atleast 50% of all men.
Correction. Somewhere close to 50% It's below 50 and I made a mistake there.
>>70731165
that's their own fault. they should man up and stop acting like little bitches.
>>70724768
>>70722857
the wizards are white nights... mainly killing the males and not the females...
I must kill the wizard class
>>70720993
Because it's the mating pattern of pre-Neolithic tribes
Literally it is a glaring siren that our society is collapsing
>>70724768
True. The tide's already turning hard.
>>70722105
>Given free choice, women always choose to mate with the top ~40% of men
Let's be realistic here... it's more like the top 10%
>>70731297
And then Western society goes the same way as all the fallen societies before it, superceded by the Chinese and their eugenically improved superhumans.
>>70731528
Genetics would imply that 50% of all men have had children, but that might have been skewed by monogamous societies, so I don't know.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/11/2047.full
>>70731528
Given the right circumstance nearly all women would be with the same fractional percentage of men while the rest of everyone else can fuck off and die
That's the way they are designed
It is our job as a society to curb the destructive aspect of female sexuality and the destructive aspect of male sexuality (ie rape, want to fuck every girl in sight etc,)
>>70720993
Bottom seven males start stabbing women, each other, and the top three males. Seven betas easily overtake three alphas.
>>70730966
>>70731252
[citation needed]
>>70731768
The bottom one posts on 4chan and attentionwhores.
>>70727107
>smartest
yeah sure buddy, that's why I see all the physicists at my faculty with smoking hot chicks on their arms. Intelligent people have less chances to breed than mediocre or below average people. There's a reason why we're seeing the shift to more men turning their backs on relationships in societies that are more intelligent on average (e.g. North europe, Japan).
>>70726780
strong independent womyn who don't need no man
>>70731836
This really, need I mention people can focus on other things that improve society if they know they are guaranteed at least some woman they can call their own. Sure, they may not get the girl of their dreams but either you use your looks and charm or hold off and try and make enough money to make up for it.
I don't get it, what does OP's image imply?
Because those lower males become a net loss for society since they have little reason to contribute to it.
>>70726142
>Legal custodial abortion for men and removal of welfare for single mothers
This this this this this this this this
>>70731904
I don't see it as a cause of sexual revolution, I think it's more complex than that.
>>70732321
That women's "choice" of partner is the leading cause of societal breakdown. Also the reason why the birthrates etc have plummeted massively.
>>70732321
That less attractive women only are willing to date the most attractive men, whereas before, everyone dated within their league
>It's a "/pol/ thinks they understand genetics" episode
God damn, this Fin is one of 4 or 5 actually informed anons in this thread.
Seeing how even /pol/ is full of narcissistic degenerates just makes me glad that the mouse experiment won't be able to occur in real life before the Muslims take over.
>>70723111
>>70723742
underrated
>>70732566
The high standards of living made our societies more individualistic and materialist in general, blaming all on the women's partner choice it's on the same level of the feminist patriarchy theory.
>>70728095
You'll be even more frustrated when you get an average girl and realize all she had to do was exist to get you. Meanwhile you had to put years of effort into improving yourself. Fuck this gay earth tbqh
>>70724731
>>70724949
This
Thanks to birth control, the "Top 20%" hardly even reproduces
Go look up some of your favorite celebrities, actors, and musicians, most of them don't have more than 1 child.
The bottom percentage is reproducing quite a bit more while the top is just engaging in unproductive degeneracy.
People are fucking more and breeding less
>>70733219
>Go look up some of your favorite celebrities, actors, and musicians
I hope that's not your idea of the top 20%, especially musicians.
>>70728095
>I 'm a manlet
I know that feel, brah
Shit sucks forever, but wear some shoe lifts and work on fitness and improving yourself.
Our pain and suffering will fuel our success. Along with copious amounts of alcohol.
>>70733013
This, for a lot of guys, is the most frustrating part of the modern feminism.
Because women aren't expected to become wives, mothers, and homemakers by default anymore, there's basically no incentive for them to develop useful skills that would make them good in those roles. They don't learn how to cook, clean, sew, or develop interesting hobbies, etc.
The "revolution" basically teaches western women that they're entitled to everything they want whether they work for it or not. They're entitled to a high paying job, but they're not required to put in a lot of effort to get it. They're entitled to a husband who'll support them and pay for their habits, but they're not required to be an equal or loyal partner in the relationship.
>>70727107
>he thinks that drug dealers and bad boys have good genetic material
Women have sex with whoever is succesful based on the current trends, they don't care about genes
>>70728095
>>70733398
You guys need to go outside more often.
I constantly see short guys with girlfriends, outise this trolling-central forum people don't care. And I'm 185cm. My ex was pretty short 160cm and she is now dating a 170cm guy.
>>70722172
>Degenerate normies keep collapsing their own societies
>Comfy religious folk watch from the sidelines
It's also important to note that the start of western civilization was literally a beta uprising. In which Romulus gathered a bunch of gf-less losers, invited the surrounding normies to one big party, and then slaughtered them all while stealing their women to found Rome. That's the story of The Rape of the Sabine Women
>>70720993
> why is this bad?
It's bad because you started the exact same shit thread yesterday
>>70727524
>That is caused by monogamy laws and societal pressure. The instant polyamory and polygamy are allowed, those numbers would jump right up. Right now those women who are refusing to marry and mate with the lower men are growing old and realising they can't marry the top 30% of men they used to fuck, so they end up as spinsters.
No I believe it's a result of technology
Human beings even 100 years had limited options for travel, communication and work
Females expecially
Even a female burger flipper no longer has to think she should settle for a car mechanic, if she *feels* she's attractive enough, she can snag a small business owner or executive
100 years ago she was stranded in her small town, pressured by religion, and didn't have the internet to whore herself out
The technology of today which includes all the roads etc and the ***birth control pill***, is far more powerful than a few paper laws
>>70731698
actually no, society and humanity will just go on without weaklings like you in the gene pool. it's natural selection at work.
It encourages most men, those that put the work into society, to not put an effort into society. Without something to gain, there is little reason for someone to put time into helping others. Under strict monogamy there is always some love to be gained, but when women flock to become harems that leaves the men remaining with no chance for love and no motivation to try and gain anything. They will strictly live for themselves. The men who already have it all already dont feel the need to help anything, as they already have anything. Women simply don't produce anything. Society will collapse
>>70732599
I think things like smartphones , Facebook and more instant gratification entertainment played part too
Everything can be customized on demand exactly how you want it, and it is starting to make people evaluate other people on this idea much more now than even 15 years ago
>>70734590
Don't forget, it also makes said men care less about the well-being of society as a whole.
Which is partially why a lot of men don't give two shits about Mudslimes invading their countries.
>>70734460
Travelling still occured. I have ancestors who moved to Finland from Sweden, the first bearer of my familyname for example was a widowed woman who travelled here and there in this region.
Even chimps travel out of their population to mate with males in other ones.
>>70734469
And natural selection does not select for populations that succeed in modern society, nor will society thrive when its birthrates are plummeting and the native population is being replaced by imported shitskins.
In stone age i could kill other mens, or just rape womens, but now laws not allow me to do that, making competition unfair.
>>70735423
Don't worry Ivan. World War 3 soon, second rape of Berlin.
>>70735015
>imported shitskins.
the irony that is clearly lost on you is that your dreaded "shitskins" are actively spreading their DNA while effeminate bitches like you watch their bloodline die out.
>>70735924
What's ironic about that? Shitskins breed - ruin Western society. The fact that the people importing them think they'll be able to replace our declining populations with them and still somehow retain the same quality of life, education and civilization?
>effeminate bitches like you
Somewhat unsocial and overweight, but not effeminate. I'm lifting and going into university for an engineering degree. I might well be able to snag myself some worthless whore so I can spread my genes onto another generation. Or maybe I'll just go with an artificial womb and a paid nanny. Seems like a better option.
>>70734932
I'm just waiting for WW3 so I can get drafted, remove kebab, and hopefully the sweet relief of death
>>70735015
>Travelling still occured. I have ancestors who moved to Finland from Sweden,
No.
These were significant journeys and the family traveled as a group.
You cannot compare to today.
A woman owns a motor car with aircon and a heater, safety air bags. Drives on roads (built & maintained by men but whatever).
She can drive in comfort anywhere she likes quickly, and without consulting a male.
This is an example of technology fully fleshing out female hypergamy. She can date a man 20, 30 miles away. 50 years ago yes you could travel but one needed to check a timetable or the service only ran two days a week.
Blaming "feminism" is a load of nonsense. Take your marriage law or college hysteria or "cultural marxism".
I'll counter with 1) birth pill 2) modern work opporunity 3) internet communication 4) personal motorised travel / mass public transit
>>70736474
Nah fuck that, when WW3 starts I'd rather be a draft dodger.
>>70733820
I don't think a bunch of ex-soldiers, merceneries, and criminals kidnapping a bunch of women in front of their fathers and brothers (and then founding the greatest civilization in history) could be classified as beta.
>>70736502
>Blaming "feminism" is a load of nonsense
Cars, birth control, modern work opportunity, and mass public transit have all existed for decades, even before feminism did.
So obviously, those aren't the catalysts.
>>70727107
>Women only go after strong males
>/pol/ realizes it can't breed because geneticly inferior
>Continues to argue for eugenics
Us autists would be roped first you retards that's why we're here.
>>70736540
>not wanting to remove kebap
The fuck is wrong with you burger?
>>70736844
Meh, the kebabs got some things right, sue me.
Shame our retarded liberals are ruining us, hopefully they'll be the first to go.
>>70736634
There were no "feminists" in the 60s and 70s?
You cannot have feminism when work was tending to fields and milking cows or down a coalmine
Feminism is just a reaction, it describes what is happening
All women are feminist by default, they weren't corrupted by bogeymen like marxism or college feminism
Human beings are animals who react accordingly to the modern technical mechanised age they find themselves in
>>70720993
Only virgin losers think this is a problem. All women want the best man. Deal with it. Female virginity is a thing of the past. They'd all rather be Chad's one night stand than your one and only.
Stop having a romanticized and fantasy based vision of relationships.
>>70720993
I just want to know. Who the fuck bangs less than 5s? Especially not a dood 7+ This chart is bs.
>>70720993
I don't understand the picture, it's always been this way.
>>70737350
>There were no "feminists" in the 60s and 70s?
I was thinking more the 20s.
>All women are feminist by default
No shit, that's why they ruin societies any time they're given freedom.
>>70737523
A wet hole is a wet hole, and that's what all women are in today's society.
>>70720993
How many times are you gonna make this thread?
>>70737523
Some guys will stick their benis in anything
>>70736502
> 1) birth pill 2) modern work opporunity 3) internet communication 4) personal motorised travel / mass public transit
>specifically omits mentioning alimony and divorce laws
>>70720993
Because as a 6/10 male I deserve at least a 6/10 female.
>>70720993
This is a shitty graph. Most men rate women on a relatively linear scale of attractiveness with the median attractiveness (5) correlating to below the peak of the bell curve (most women fall between 5 and 8). There are a few 9s 10s and a good amount of sub 5s. graph has slight bulge between 5-8
Women regardless of attractiveness consistently rank the attractiveness of men on an exponentially decreasing scale with the majority of them falling around 5 or below. means graph starts small at 1-2 then peaks at 5 then falls dramatically.
Chances are that you rate the woman youre interacting with more attractive than she rates you. This has crucial implications to everything from random public interactions to professional to romantic interactions. It sets the bar for your interactions with other men.
Hence the critical first 2 rules in life: be attractive. Don't be unattractive.
The good news is that due to the scarcity of attractive men and the fickleness of women it is really easy for men to climb entire attractiveness points within weeks. growing up, working out, anything that gives you confidence.
>>70738319
Unfortunately the world will never work like that Ausbro
I used to get laid all the time when I put a ton of effort into it (play in band, party a lot). I got disillusioned with the promiscuous modern woman and decided to focus on work instead. Started a business and now I never go out and work 7 days a week. Haven't gotten laid since, but the company is starting to take off. Am I doing it right or wrong?
>>70738319
you don't DESERVE anything, that's communism
you need to work with what you got, i've seen plenty of 3/10 + 8/10 couples both way, so you're either overrating yourself or you fell for the looks meme
>>70722753
That pic suggests female sexuality is the enemy of civilization.
I call bullshit. Beta is a choice of laziness and softness over toughness and alphahood.
Its not a genetic trait more than it is men being giant pussies.
Men being giant pussies is obviously the enemy of civilization.
Or do betas actually believe they are entitled to a peaceful functional society and faithful pussy when all they do is play video games and post on a kamchatkan manganese cribbage board?
TLDR grow a pair and you'll get laid/save civilization.
Women really just want a badass mofo of any genetic background to put her in place without abusing her.
>>70739522
>That pic suggests female sexuality is the enemy of civilization.
It is.
The entirety of civilization was designed around restricting female sexuality.
That's why there ARE no successful societies where female sexuality isn't restricted, and when they're unrestricted after being restricted for so long, the society itself collapses soon after.
