The Death or Reversal of Human Civilization

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

I'm not arguing that our genes are dissimilar; I'm arguing that sexism isn't genetic.

The different strategies for male and female reproduction are genetic.
Talking about these things does not make me a sexist. At least not in the pejorative sense.
You accused me of both racism and sexism. At least you owe me an explanation.
Is the pointing out the differences in income racist?

Or are these just terms you throw around to silence the other person?
I am neither a bitter incel (even if I were, the value of the arguments would not be affected) nor do I hate women. When I was 18 I could have had sex with a 14 year old girl, but I was (and am) too decent for that. She later turned out to sleep around (although I don't know if she is happy today). Later in my life I turned down sex for other reasons and I don't regret it because I do not like to hurt people who like me. I'm certainly not an alpha, although it is interesting how the female psyche works in terms of perceived value: your own value increases in their eyes if you just have other women around or other options.

The advice I would give to woman is using their value when it peaks. Women should get married no later than in their 20s.
Pointing out that men and women have different peaks in attractiveness (value on the dating market) is also not sexist - in my opinion.
Telling them that they should spend their 20s to sleep around and/or study hard to settle down with a lesser deal (than what they could have had) later on is actually not compassionate at all - in my opinion.

 

[Lacius]

The different strategies for male and female reproduction are genetic.
Talking about these things does not make me a sexist. At least not in the pejorative sense.
You both accused me of racism and sexism. At least you owe me an explanation.
Is the pointing out the differences in income racist?

Or are these just terms you throw around to silence the other person?
I am neither a bitter incel (even if I were, the value of arguments would not be affected) nor do I hate women. When I was 18 I could have had sex with a 14 year old girl, but I was (and am) too decent for that. She later turned out to sleep around (although I don't know if she is happy today). Later in my life I turned down sex for other reasons and I don't regret it because I do not like to hurt people who like me. I'm certainly not an alpha, although it is interesting how the female psyche works in terms of perceived value: your own value increases in their eyes if you just have other women around or other options.

The advice I would give to woman is using their value when it peaks. Women should get married no later than in their 20s.
Pointing out that men and women have different peaks in attractiveness (value on the dating market) is also not sexist - in my opinion.
Telling them that they should spend their 20s to sleep around and/or study hard to settle down with a lesser deal (than what they could have had) later on is actually not compassionate at all - in my opinion.

Women don't have to marry at all if they don't want to, and that's perfectly fine.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Indeed it is. IF they do not want to.
Though the unhappiness of women in their early 30s about a lack of marriage material is also startling.
There was a talk show recently in which 3 very ambitious and beautiful ladies complained about just that (the topic was not dating-related; it was just a side discussion). What are you going to tell them if they end up alone? "You should have lowered standards regarding income" (?)
It's like telling men they should be attracted to older women.

 

[AveSatanas]

Alpha-beta male bullshit was a misunderstanding of nature by the person who wrote the theory.

Taking away women's rights won't solve anything, neither will separating them.

We are stronger when we are together. Don't let anyone split you up when you're a majority OR a minority. If their hatred isn't targeting you now, it'll target you when you are weaker.

Equal rights for everyone.

 

[Stwert]

Tinder is widely used to hook up for sex and the ratio resembles much more the pre-civilizational state (many women for one man) than a monogamous-promoting civilization. Your objection is dishonest. Scientific data can come from anywhere. You could count cars on the street and make a study on colors of the cars, age of the drivers, etc. Facebook, Tinder, etc are not sources of scientific articles, but they certainly are FULL of data.

Data from Tinder is bound to be skewed, but ok, if that’s what you’d like to use as your source, fair enough. But what’s your control group?

 

[osaka35]

The different strategies for male and female reproduction are genetic.
Talking about these things does not make me a sexist. At least not in the pejorative sense.
You accused me of both racism and sexism. At least you owe me an explanation.
Is the pointing out the differences in income racist?

Or are these just terms you throw around to silence the other person?
I am neither a bitter incel (even if I were, the value of the arguments would not be affected) nor do I hate women. When I was 18 I could have had sex with a 14 year old girl, but I was (and am) too decent for that. She later turned out to sleep around (although I don't know if she is happy today). Later in my life I turned down sex for other reasons and I don't regret it because I do not like to hurt people who like me. I'm certainly not an alpha, although it is interesting how the female psyche works in terms of perceived value: your own value increases in their eyes if you just have other women around or other options.

The advice I would give to woman is using their value when it peaks. Women should get married no later than in their 20s.
Pointing out that men and women have different peaks in attractiveness (value on the dating market) is also not sexist - in my opinion.
Telling them that they should spend their 20s to sleep around and/or study hard to settle down with a lesser deal (than what they could have had) later on is actually not compassionate at all - in my opinion.

That's not how genetics work.

Basically, don't think of it as strict categories. They're a lot more fuzzy than that. Maybe...there's a stronger genetic pressure on women than men to do A or B. But how strong or weak that pressure is varies from person to person. Could even be stronger in some men than women. "Stronger tendency" could be 51% to 49%, it doesn't really tell you much. But the most important thing to remember is we're not computers. Life is a lot fuzzier and complex than some if/then statement it feels like you're imagining.

We can talk about tendencies and predispositions, but it's super important we realize it doesn't really apply to any specific individual. It can't, not how things like that work. It's more of a fuzzy whole when you talk about topics like this, with the possibility of no individual actually carrying all the traits the "average" of traits would suggest.

 

[SecureBoot]

I've always found it interesting to see humans described as animalistic. I've always seen humans as far superior to animals

 

[Lacius]

I've always found it interesting to see humans described as animalistic. I've always seen humans as far superior to animals

That's a bit like saying pencils are superior to writing utensils, since a pencil is a writing utensil. Similarly, humans are animals. Instead, you can say that, in a lot of ways, humans are superior to the non-human animals. You can't say they're superior in every way, however. Drop a naked human and a naked fish far beneath the ocean, and it's clear which is superior in that situation. Superiority is relative and needs to be specifically defined.

 

[SecureBoot]

That's a bit like saying pencils are superior to writing utensils, since a pencil is a writing utensil. Similarly, humans are animals. Instead, you can say that, in a lot of ways, humans are superior to the non-human animals. You can't say they're superior in every way, however. Drop a naked human and a naked fish far beneath the ocean, and it's clear which is superior in that situation. Superiority is relative and needs to be specifically defined.

Fair enough. Humans are socially superior to any other non-human. To lump them with other animals feels almost wrong to me considering how far removed they are. No other animal is able to communicate with the effect a human can. Animals communicate and have communities to survive. Humans are able to use community to advance technology, comprehend, develop morals, etc.

 

[Stwert]

I've always found it interesting to see humans described as animalistic. I've always seen humans as far superior to animals

Pretty sure a spider can best me at climbing up the outside of our house, even if I took a shed-load of "enhancement" pills considering we live very close to woods, we get a lot of those wee buggers

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

That's not how genetics work.
...

First of all I need to clarify how much "fuziness" we are talking about (because some people wouldn't generalize if their lives depended on it). Simple question: Are men taller than women?

Genetics have shown that females have been far more succesful in terms of consistent reproduction. Most women who ever lived had children, but most men did not. There is roughly the same number of boys and girls being born. From the perspective of our selfish genes, being a boy is more risky but also potentially more rewarding (high risk, high reward). The genes could end up in a Dschingis Khan (hundreds of children) or an incel (no children).
Therefore the sexual hierarchy is: alpha males, females, beta males.

A woman has never asked herself if the child is really hers (unless due to a mix-up after birth).
A man never worried about being provided protein while he is pregnant.
Men and women are fundamentally different in terms of reproduction and have different strategies.

alpha males: spreading the seed as much as possible (or in today's society: have sex with as many females as possible; children are often an unwanted side effect)

females: chase after the desired alpha male; using the resources of betas if she can't have the desired alpha but - if possible - still have his children (or an affair with him)

beta males: put all the eggs in one basket, i.e. spending time and resources on one woman (hoping that this extra care will mitigate the competitive disadvantage)

-> Monogamy (which I see it as a key factor of, if not a synonym of civilization) has restricted the freedom of alphas and females for the benefit of betas and social stability.
100 or a 1000 years ago a woman who get pregnant because she chased after the alpha of her dreams but was left shortly afterwards would have been a burden to her parents, the extended family or religious community. So there was not only a push from unsatisfied betas but also large parts of society to restrict female choice. With today's big government and anonymous society, these considerations have largely vanished.

When women complain about how unfair dating is (e.g. they can't be sleep around and be admired for it) they neither consider the biological foundation of it nor compare themselves with the majority of men (i.e. betas who would love to be called names in exchange for having sex).

 

[osaka35]

First of all I need to clarify how much "fuziness" we are talking about (because some people wouldn't generalize if their lives depended on it). Simple question: Are men taller than women?

Genetics have shown that females have been far more succesful in terms of consistent reproduction. Most women who ever lived had children, but most men did not. There is roughly the same number of boys and girls being born. From the perspective of our selfish genes, being a boy is more risky but also potentially more rewarding (high risk, high reward). The genes could end up in a Dschingis Khan (hundreds of children) or an incel (no children).
Therefore the sexual hierarchy is: alpha males, females, beta males.

A woman has never asked herself if the child is really hers (unless due to a mix-up after birth).
A man never worried about being provided protein while he is pregnant.
Men and women are fundamentally different in terms of reproduction and have different strategies.

alpha males: spreading the seed as much as possible (or in today's society: have sex with as many females as possible; children are often an unwanted side effect)

females: chase after the desired alpha male; using the resources of betas if she can't have the desired alpha but - if possible - still have his children (or an affair with him)

beta males: put all the eggs in one basket, i.e. spending time and resources on one woman (hoping that this extra care will mitigate the competitive disadvantage)

-> Monogamy (which I see it as a key factor of, if not a synonym of civilization) has restricted the freedom of alphas and females for the benefit of betas and social stability.
100 or a 1000 years ago a woman who get pregnant because she chased after the alpha of her dreams but was left shortly afterwards would have been a burden to her parents, the extended family or religious community. So there was not only a push from unsatisfied betas but also large parts of society to restrict female choice. With today's big government and anonymous society, these considerations have largely vanished.

When women complain about how unfair dating is (e.g. they can't be sleep around and be admired for it) they neither consider the biological foundation of it nor compare themselves with the majority of men (i.e. betas who would love to be called names in exchange for having sex).

men *on average* tend to be taller than females. Which means in terms of raw numbers, there will be a larger total number of men that are taller than X height when compared to the larger total number of women taller than X height. Or you could total everyone's height and say men are taller than women on average, but that average isn't any single person. Point is, if you're going to use statistics to prove a point, you have to make sure the statistics are saying what you're thinking they're saying. For height, it's incredibly important proper nutrition and various genetics are taken into account. For instance, in some populations, women may be equal in height to men on average, others the difference may be larger in one way or the other. You have to know what's being measured or it doesn't actually support what you think it does. statistics tend to only help illuminate one thing, and only a professional can translate that into understandable English. those who are less professional make massive leaps in guesswork to say the data actually says all these other things when they don't. It's the difference between someone who understands science and someone who has an agenda.

Alphas and betas aren't anything we see in nature, not in the way you're presenting them. They're certainly not a thing in regards to the selfish gene. It's a good book, you should read it. It's where the term "meme" comes from. Anyway, Alpha/beta is completely a social construct, which you could impose on a group...but it's not a very successful way to see things. It doesn't really answer most questions, and it unnecessarily plops people into categories they don't really fit into. Instead of the unnecessary categories, just think of it as down to personal preference and fulfilling personal needs. It might be better to think of it as what're someone's goals, what're their emotional maturity level (EQ), what're their abilities to communicate like, and what're their perceptions of the situation. You'll find when you ask those questions, you'll find your categories evaporating into uselessness.

It sounds like you have a vague grasp of older genetic thinking, put through the distorting and misrepresentative red-pill filter, and attached your own personal biases to come up with this...hypothesis. The genetical thinking you're relying on doesn't actually say what you think you're saying, and we've come a long long way since the actual scientific bits you're relying on were presented. If you wish to have a proper understanding, I'd suggest you stick to just books like the selfish gene and proper scientifically researched stuff. Genetics is a fun topic, avoid those who twist it to validate their own insecurities. It's far better to know you don't know than to trick yourself into thinking you know something you don't actually know.

 

[Fates-Blade-900]

Oh boy an incel escaped it's cage

Edit: also I agree women exist only to make me sandwiches and babies

Women exist to do a lot more then those from a biblical stand point, and still can do more without one, women aren't tools just for this or that, they're human also, and people should treat them like humans.

 

[Fates-Blade-900]

Like some people have said, you lost me, your point in a nutshell maybe? And it's true that the women choice guys that look better, have more money etc. (the "alphas",) but won't that just make the "betas", work harder to get a woman? Isn't that a good thing?

 

[TheRealKokichi]

I've read through this thread, and one thing I don't quite understand is where you're getting your facts from. Namely here in your last post:

alpha males: spreading the seed as much as possible (or in today's society: have sex with as many females as possible; children are often an unwanted side effect)

females: chase after the desired alpha male; using the resources of betas if she can't have the desired alpha but - if possible - still have his children (or an affair with him)

beta males: put all the eggs in one basket, i.e. spending time and resources on one woman (hoping that this extra care will mitigate the competitive disadvantage)

When women complain about how unfair dating is (e.g. they can't be sleep around and be admired for it) they neither consider the biological foundation of it nor compare themselves with the majority of men (i.e. betas who would love to be called names in exchange for having sex).

Where exactly are you getting these statistics from? Sure, some people might use hookup websites to shoot their shot and leave, but that's because they're for hookups, and people might run into someone who's on the app for a different intention than them, which is why some may call the websites unfair. But, that's not the fault of either person, or the app itself. People may just get a lot of different-intentioned people, and believe the app is rigged against them. But, that's where you either branch into a different app, take a break from dating, or keep trying. Calling all members of one gender "bad" doesn't change any of that. The Internet has changed a lot of how we view things, I think.

Speaking personally, a lot of what scares me about dating is running into people who see me as "lesser", or people that might seriously harm me just because "all women are bad". Anyways, I'm kind of rambling, so I'll hold my tongue. I'm not trying to attack you, but I'm genuinely curious where you read things from and why you believe what you do about it.

 

[Hells Malice]

Women exist to do a lot more then those from a biblical stand point, and still can do more without one, women aren't tools just for this or that, they're human also, and people should treat them like humans.

You mean like they can make me more than a sandwich?
I know the Bible says women can also make me a sub but I've always disagreed with Jesus' insistence that it'd be better than Subway, yknow? I prefer my woman just stick to the basics. @Chary sandwich pls.

 

[Fates-Blade-900]

You mean like they can make me more than a sandwich?
I know the Bible says women can also make me a sub but I've always disagreed with Jesus' insistence that it'd be better than Subway, yknow? I prefer my woman just stick to the basics. @Chary sandwich pls.

No I mean that they can have more purposes then just making a sandwich, and I think Chary actually, is a very good example of that.

 

[Hells Malice]

No I mean that they can have more purposes then just making a sandwich, and I think Chary actually, is a very good example of that.

You mean like... Making soup? I do like a good soup. But that requires using a stove and women are uneducated so they'd probably end up burning themselves, or more importantly burning my house down. That'd be terrible!

 

[TheRealKokichi]

You mean like... Making soup? I do like a good soup. But that requires using a stove and women are uneducated so they'd probably end up burning themselves, or more importantly burning my house down. That'd be terrible!

Man, I can't make soup to save my life. Guess I gotta turn in my woman card...

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

men *on average* tend to be taller than females.
...
For height, it's incredibly important proper nutrition and various genetics are taken into account. For instance, in some populations, women may be equal in height to men on average, others the difference may be larger in one way or the other.

Okay, so you are not hopeless case in terms of discussing differences. Thank you.
The caveat about women could be taller than men in some populations is unnecessary. It would only be possible in a population in which men starve while women get proper nutrition. We could also take always George Clooneys money and force him to crawl on his knees all day (then he wouldn't be an alpha anymore). Why would we waste time on these scenarios? Do you think I'm not intelligent enough to imagine outlandish caveats?

The fact or possibility that there is no average woman or men in terms of height (down to the 1/100 of a millimeter) does not negate the statement (I don't care if he/she exists, the average is something else).

Alphas and betas aren't anything we see in nature, not in the way you're presenting them.

There is a Discovery Channel. You should watch it or channels like it.
There are absolutely alphas and betas. The latest one I casually watched showed wild sheep. The alpha sheep had sex with all females until there was no more sperm coming out at all (what the moderator said) and it was too tired to fight off the betas. Then the betas had their turn but the females seemed more reluctant. You can call this phenomenon whatever you like, but it exists. And it exists in humans as well. Somebody who denies these simple observations must be either living behind a rock or has an agenda.

[The two statements that could be viewed as insulting are exact mirrors of what you accused me of]