"If women select for the most attractive men, why aren't the unattractive ones bred out yet?"

Aldabruzzo · 2021-12-06T17:37:13+00:00

Because

1) Women end up marrying, and breeding, with less attractive men than they can fuck as younger women.

2) Poorer nutrition and self-care. More obesity.

3) Women have sex with the most attractive men and use birth control to avoid pregnancy.

4) Women above the underclass avoid pregnancy with men who aren't likely to invest.

ruboyuri · 2021-12-06T17:27:19+00:00

Male and female attractiveness traits are antagonistic

HathSpoken · 2021-12-06T17:36:50+00:00

Because women with shitty genes (ugly/short/etc.) are still able to reproduce as much as they want which is what women who advocate eugenics fail to realize.

E-2-butene · 2021-12-06T17:15:25+00:00

While your point cover part of the issue, there are two additional aspects to consider.

First, women don’t actually just select for the most attractive men. I would certainly hope this is obvious, as we talk about men getting beta buxxed all the time. These men are obviously having kids as well, which reduces the selective pressure for attractiveness. Keep in mind, there’s a difference between being reproductively successful and having a good relationship. Male black widows and praying mantises have plenty of reproductive success but don’t exactly have a good time.

Second, even if we incorrectly assumed a model where women were only banging top chads, there’s still the question of whether or not the less attractive women are having kids. Presumably the idea in this model is that, yes, they are. In which case there are plenty of “ugly” genes that still get to reproduce.

Edit: This is just a guess, but I think part of the reason you might get claims about bad genetics is a bit of a misunderstanding of regression to the mean. Regression to the mean in inheritance is a bit more about environmental effects impacting some phenotype which don’t carry over to the next generation. This is most obvious in stuff like IQ where early development is really important. The new generation could indeed have better genes, their phenotype just doesn’t totally reflect it if their environment is different.

PlayfulLawyer · 2021-12-06T18:41:42+00:00

Theres some ugly ass women reproducing too, I'll be in Wal Mart or something and see some D- broad with 3 kids , and think "Who found you so appealing they couldn't resist pulling out " lol, but throughout human history 90+% of women have reproduced while 40-50% of men have, so it actually has happened either way

AbbreviationsHot1200 · 2021-12-06T18:22:03+00:00

Because ugly women get to breed and produce ugly sons

xFallacyx69 · 2021-12-06T18:30:50+00:00

Cuz ugly women still get laid… and not committed to. See the single parent epidemic. And even if they didn’t, high quality sperm is dirt cheap.

SaBahRub · 2021-12-06T17:35:26+00:00

Masculine and feminine features are directly in opposition

MotiMorphosys · 2021-12-06T18:14:24+00:00

This is true for hookups, LTRs have more factors than attraction. Those other factors come into play.

Hookups are also much less likely to produce offspring these days.

Pilling_it · 2021-12-06T19:21:12+00:00

Because ugly women exist?

NoMarriageNoKids · 2021-12-06T19:46:32+00:00

Unattractive women still exist and procreate.

Aclopolipse · 2021-12-06T17:22:47+00:00

Every woman prefers different things

He knows this doesn't contradict 80/20 at all, right? Right?

Intrepid_Place5390 · 2021-12-06T20:32:32+00:00

alcohol?

John_Oakman · 2021-12-06T21:22:10+00:00

People's beauty standards are rising faster than eugenics...

Jakes1967 · 2021-12-06T20:54:44+00:00

"If women select for the most attractive men, why aren't the unattractive ones bred out yet?"

You're forgetting the single mothers.

sex_is_dirty · 2021-12-06T21:30:54+00:00

Even the prettiest people harbor ugly genes. Then there are several steps in mitosis that can result in strange sperm & egg.

CauliflowerHonest950 · 2021-12-06T21:58:54+00:00

Years of civilization, rules, religion, and social stigma created an environment where men with subpar genetics could heavily contribute to society, improve their wealth and SMV, and provide safety and security for women. As women options get broader and become more independent this will slowly change. That’s how I feel I could be wayyy off

Devourer_of_felines · 2021-12-06T23:10:01+00:00

Because historically money and power gets you laid much more than being tall and having good facial symmetry.

You can’t breed out poverty.

sinisterforces · 2021-12-08T23:57:43+00:00

Honestly, number one is such a major factor. I’ve seen hot parents produce ugly children and vice versa. Plus… some children inherit genes in a random combination that ends up ugly. And a woman that is considered pretty will usually have the opposite traits of a man that is considered handsome. Very mannish women are more likely to produce Chads, and incel femboys the Staceys.

Goldenbear321 · 2021-12-09T03:35:57+00:00

Because women don't select based only on looks. Status is also very important. Think pro-athletes and multi-millionaires, and rock stars.

And in many places, women didn't choose, period. Families chose. This is even true today in much of the world. And even when they did choose, the choice was among the 30 or so blokes who were part of the same tribe or within walking distance. Entire Continents like Oceana and Africa were very sparcely populated until recently.

And even if only the best looking people bred, women would just get pickier and become more sensitive to minor imperfections. Soon only Chris Hemsworth, Michael Fassbender, and Chris Evans are "attractive." Tom Holland, Benedict Cumberbach, and Tom Hiddleston are now trolls.

Basic-Distribution14 · 2021-12-06T17:35:02+00:00

Most women don’t look for that. Most women just want a regular guy. It’s men’s obsession with the most attractive women that they base their opinions on what all women want or look for

SonicBackScratcher · 2021-12-06T20:13:05+00:00

Women select for more than looks period.

So do men but its heavily favored to looks.

This is pretty much cross cultural.

Looks are simply more important for reproductive success in women than males.

Men get trophy wives and no one bats an eye, the rare rich woman gets a trophy husband and people whisper.

goatismycopilot · 2021-12-06T17:50:43+00:00

Does your friend really get furious?

KirthWGersen · 2021-12-06T18:45:58+00:00

Even if every generation is more beautiful than the last, there will still be those who are relatively more beautiful than the rest. And in the next. And in the next. Features that give you an edge in one generation may be commonplace ten generations down the line.

People today would probably not find the features of homo erectus enticing (except perhaps for novelty) and in the same way, most of us don't think of chimpanzees as particularly sexy.

Flightlessbirbz · 2021-12-06T18:47:45+00:00

Simple answer is because ugly people tend to get with other ugly people and still reproduce more often than not. More complex answer is that evolution is not that simple, and even attractive parents can make an “ugly” kid. Look at Bruce Willis and Demi Moore and their daughter Rumer Willis. This article offers some further explanation for why ugly people haven’t been eliminated by natural selection. https://www.livescience.com/7229-study-explains-beautiful.html

Kentucky_Supreme · 2021-12-06T19:08:11+00:00

I think it's all just based on the average. Which is always (but slowly) moving up. Meaning that the least attractive people today are still more attractive than the least attractive people 1,000 years ago.

yungthrowaway97 · 2021-12-06T21:00:45+00:00

Two attractive parents does not guarantee attractive children. Genetics doesn't work like that.

Expensive-Guitar3609 · 2021-12-06T22:20:40+00:00

Nature plays dices with male genes, it creates random anomalies on both ends of every human characteristic to favour evolutive jumps, and sometimes those anomalies fail to adapt or achieve reproductive success, and sometimes they succeed and have multiple descendants.

Doing the same with female genes it's a waste of oportunities.

That's why on average, women are slightly smarter than men, so there are more dumb men than women (also, I suspect, the reasson why more women than men get degrees) but when you look at the greatest minds of all human history, they are all men, to the point the IQ that separates Nicola Tesla from the average woman is twice the IQ that separates mankind from chimps.

That's why there are more short men than short women, but it's also the reasson why there are more tall men than tall women.

That's the reasson why a lot more men than women are obesse, but it's also the reasson why if we compare best sportwomen to men like Christiano Ronaldo or Lionel Messi we would think we are talking about literally two different species.

That's the reasson why, on average, men are only 15 to 20% faster and stronger than women, but when you go look at high level sport performances, men outperform women even beyond 30-35% physical capabilities.

That's the reasson why a Karsten Baarsch, who was a mediocre tennis player in the 168# worldwide ranking, crushed in the most shamefull and HORRIBLE way to both Venus and Serena Williams in the same day when they were #1 and #2 in the female ranking, and who are still considered the best female tennis players of all times (imagine Venus and Serena playing 1-1 against Federer).

There will be always losers in the genetic rulette, but most of the time women come up being "the average" while men distribute themselves to the sides. They lose more, but they also win more.

That's how nature operates, and the reasson is simple:

If biology experiment with women that would be a complete waste of genetic resources, because if 50% of women come up being sub-par we are fucked as a specie.

On the other hand, if biology experiment with men genes, it doesn't matter if 90% of them are born fucked, the 10% left that is born with the right genetic convination will fuck as many women as they want, securing the fertility rate and passing the best genes to the next generation.

That's the reasson why more women than men reproduced in history, and that's basically the reasson why the Redpillers claim there is a sexual market who's split acording to a 80/20 rule.

oldcamembert · 2021-12-06T23:45:51+00:00

The simple truth is that the whole history of the modern human, given the (relative) richness of the genome, is not sufficient for the selection effect of the natural assortative mating (10s breeding with 10s, tall breeding with tall etc.) to become very visible.

There are around 300 generations, i.e. "mate selection events" (as a rough ballpark) separating you from your Stone Age ancestor, and a) the definition of "attractiveness" has probably changed quite a lot during this time as the survival fitness criteria has probably varied a lot too b) the majority of these pairings weren't probably due to free choice in any case.

Now when it becomes interesting, is with the possible introduction of artificial selection (as in, "designer babies") now, which may be able to speed up the process significantly, and is no longer pure science fiction. But it is a completely different topic.

figuringMylife · 2021-12-07T00:02:17+00:00

I think humans are historically more attractive than we’ve probably ever been. Women don’t place the same emphasis on looks that men do. Men just no longer want to compensate for their lack of looks, lack of taking care of themselves, lack of fashion, etc.

Head-Language-2977 · 2021-12-07T00:05:56+00:00

The attractiveness of a couples kids is still random because one kid may get the best combination of both parents and the next kid gets the worst combination of both parents.

For a silly example, the dad may be an alpha football player and the mom the alpha cheerleader, but if the daughter ends up looking like dads twin, or the son came out 5’6” like mom…

cccccclairee · 2021-12-07T00:47:57+00:00

Have you really not seen unattractive couples who have kids? Or is that point 2 in some convoluted way that puts 99% of people are unattractive?

This seems obvious.

StacksFifthAve · 2021-12-07T03:46:33+00:00

The simple answer to that is that genetics are weird and it is entirely possible for two attractive people to have an ugly child.

Throwaway18077 · 2021-12-07T04:19:02+00:00

Women don’t select for the most attractive men. They select men that make them feel heard, loved, safe and understood. You can’t be completely hideous but I’d argue you just have to pass a certain threshold to get a date with her.

Educational-Ad6210 · 2021-12-07T06:32:35+00:00

A simpler way to put it: the definition of unattractive is the bottom 80.

the concept of unattractive does not just “exist” hovering over us, it is derived from the population. All males are ranked in terms of their physical traits that are useful for survival/providing food, bottom 80 is cut from the game. Unattractive guys can’t all die? and if they do the 80% of the remaining twenty will be unattractive.

In their defense, if every single man did what he is supposed to the 80/20 dynamics will be preserved, so I quietly bite my tongue when people tell them to just work harder

Blackheart201992 · 2021-12-07T08:40:58+00:00

Unattractive women don't get bred out and pass on their defects to their offspring.

JimBeamAndCoke2016 · 2021-12-07T09:08:03+00:00

Women going for the most attractive men, and being able to, is a post internet phenomenon.

Women have understandably wanted the best looking men, but until their options and choices exploded, "thanks" to the internet, they had to settle for a far smaller pool of men. A 4/10 woman ending up with a 7/10 man was very rare before.

The true effect of this won't be seen for a few generations, at which point average to below looking men will be almost certainly be sexless and forever alone.

ChibsFilipTelfordd · 2021-12-07T12:56:11+00:00

In another case, children of tall parents often are shorter than the parent of the same gender instead of continuously getting taller each generation.

Source please

prettyuncreativename · 2021-12-07T17:14:39+00:00

gene expression, also sexual success and reproductive success is not a correlated as you could think.

daddysgotanew · 2021-12-07T19:47:57+00:00

Two good looking people can make some ugly ass kids. Happens all the time

GenitalReality · 2021-12-08T14:55:01+00:00

Two very attractive people can still have ugly kids by pure chance and the fact that women with bad genes can easily be with a man with far better genes dragging down the final product.

Title	"If women select for the most attractive men, why aren't the unattractive ones bred out yet?"
Author	Cream_8013
Upvotes	8
Comments	116
Date	December 6, 2021 7:20 AM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/ra1fxx/if_women_select_for_the_most_attractive_men_why/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/if-women-select-for-the-most-attractive-men-why.1088421 https://theredarchive.com/post/1088421

Comments