Women SHOULD only aim to reproduce with the top 20% of men

Circle_of_Steel_ · 2024-10-14T17:46:55+00:00

subsequent entertain quickest support weary important sort shy languid plant

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

LaurenTsaisCatEye · 2024-10-14T16:18:48+00:00

[permanently deleted]

PurplePillDebate-ModTeam · 2024-10-14T15:54:35+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Bandit174 · 2024-10-14T16:17:26+00:00

If all women reproduce shitty genes will still be passed on to the next generation. A lot of guys who are under 6ft have a tall father who mated with a short woman which caused him to be under 6ft.

It's got to go both ways if you really want to maximize the quality of the gene pool

Jaeger__85 · 2024-10-14T16:32:16+00:00

The bottom 60% of the females shouldnt reproduce either. Else they might give their inferior genes to their sons and are responsible for their miserable life.

Lovers691 · 2024-10-14T16:44:13+00:00

All that would happen from this is fisherian runaway, the old top 20% of men would become average ad infinitum. There is also the fact that unless you are in favour of extensive harems there won't be enough top 20% men for all women

GH0STRIDER579 · 2024-10-14T17:27:48+00:00

So what do you propose for the bottom 80% of women? Because generally speaking those top 20% men will want top 20% women for monogamous marriages too, so what's for everyone else? Polygamy?

cardboard_pyramid · 2024-10-14T15:57:39+00:00

[permanently deleted]

OuroborosMadness · 2024-10-14T16:02:43+00:00

[permanently deleted]

No_Teacher_3313 · 2024-10-14T17:51:54+00:00

Stop telling people what to do. This is idiotic.

Valuable-Marzipan761 · 2024-10-14T16:02:14+00:00

[permanently deleted]

PurplePillDebate-ModTeam · 2024-10-14T16:01:38+00:00

[permanently deleted]

PurplePillDebate-ModTeam · 2024-10-14T16:16:39+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Fryhtan69 · 2024-10-14T16:29:53+00:00

You want inbreeding to start happening? Because that's how you get inbreeding to start happening.

ThatGuyFromThisPlace · 2024-10-14T16:30:55+00:00

Evolutionarily it is the wisest choice.

You clearly don't understand evolution. Humans are arguably one of the most successful species on earth, and we got here by evolution. And we clearly didn't evolve into all women reproducing with only a few top males. Other species did, we did not.

And this also completely neglects the affects of our culture and society. Your approach would lead to either 1) a huge drop in birthrate, essentially killing us of in a few generations, or 2) a very large amount of single mothers that would need to be financially supported somehow.

Edit: one more point:

We live in a capitalist world, children living in poverty have consistently poor health outcomes.

This is the US capitalism. Europe has a more social version of capitalism that equalizes health and wealth much better (not perfect, I know).

treadmarks · 2024-10-14T16:54:35+00:00

So like the NBA groupies who try to baby trap pro basketball players?

This sounds like a good way to create a lot of lonely single moms who subsequently become undateable to all men, not just the ones in the top 20%. You know how many news stories I read every month about single moms killing their children then themselves? It's very sad.

missmireya · 2024-10-14T17:18:43+00:00

I'm not having kids so it ain't my problem.

Hot-Law2682 · 2024-10-14T17:35:59+00:00

Just saying depending on what your standards for resources, height, and attractiveness are you are likely only describing 0.031% of men.

And the vast majority of those guys are already in relationships.

So if a woman has those standards around 0.0000062% of men or 6 men per 10 million are viable partners.

Weary_Bit_9356 · 2024-10-14T19:38:01+00:00

As long as the bottom 80% women reproduce, this will not work. Also, good luck keeping the world stable.

haaku-san · 2024-10-14T20:24:15+00:00

i feel like people don't understand that a woman's genetics also come into play, but i dunno man. i only come here to see people say funny things and to talk about how much i like escorts

meisterkraus · 2024-10-14T20:47:15+00:00

I don't think you understand evolution or genetics.

Commercial-Engineer3 · 2024-10-14T22:05:36+00:00

Women in general are more prosocial and altruistic than men

LOL that's a funny joke.

OuroborosMadness · 2024-10-14T16:10:15+00:00

So you ok sharing men with other women?

Swordfromthecement · 2024-10-14T16:11:14+00:00

My main disagreements:

Focusing on the top 20% is unhealthy. Find a good man that you’re attracted to that you get along with.
Most women would rather date a man who isn’t in the top 20% than be alone for the rest of their lives.
That’s a fair definition of the top 20% but there’s always going to be people who weigh the categories differently.
It feels a bit…narcissistic and elitist? I can’t imagine a society like this surviving for long. You still need average people who have a stake in a society. What happens to the women who cant land a top 20% man?

Muggo_Sluggo · 2024-10-14T16:51:49+00:00

Not sure that would create a scenario with a lot of well adjusted men. Just from personal observations, the couple of guys I know that get a lot of women tend to not care so much about the women they sleep with. Not really due to a personality defect, but it seems like a product of simple excess. I guess like free markets, a surplus kind of lowers the value.

I'd say the one common trait they've shared is the desire not to have children or engage in committed relationships. Actually, I hear that's more common now, and I assume that's a result of the concentration of "top men" getting the lion's share of women on dating apps.

Gold_Supermarket1956 · 2024-10-14T17:43:56+00:00

this line of thinking is how you end up with a inbred gene pool

Sillysheila · 2024-10-15T00:39:42+00:00

No.

Women should aim to reproduce with whoever they want to. Restricting who women can pair with smacks of previous times where women had little to no rights.

Plus what individual women think is “top value” differs. I noticed you didn’t mention intelligence or IQ at all, just a laundry list of personality traits, but I prize men with high IQs who are learned. However, I don’t care about height as much as you, and that’s in your list. So if my wants for high value don’t conform to your personal list, am I meant to go by your standards? I don’t want to. I want the free choice to go for what I’d prefer.

EntertainerLive926 · 2024-10-15T05:04:25+00:00

the attractive gap between man and woman is insane. You'd think that two attractive people would make, at a higher chance, attractive offspring. Many times, a beautiful girl has three subpar average brothers, always. Something probably fucked up in the lineage.

Aafan_Barbarro · 2024-10-14T16:17:12+00:00

[permanently deleted]

PurplePillDebate-ModTeam · 2024-10-14T16:19:54+00:00

[permanently deleted]

StrugglingSoprano · 2024-10-14T17:27:44+00:00

This is terrible bait

LazyDamage7972 · 2024-10-14T16:05:37+00:00

I get you, but saying poor people shouldn’t reproduce is the textbook definition of eugenics and also not a good one. Most fit, athletic guys are usually blue collar and therefore poorer

topforce · 2024-10-14T16:06:01+00:00

If adopted such approach will either lead to cultural extinction (cultures that have above replacement level fertility will replace those that don't over time) or women who do get married need to pop out 11 kids on average or large amount of single mothers.

_Royalty_ · 2024-10-14T16:08:46+00:00

Why 15/20%? Why not lower or higher? Should the woman adhere to the same 3 characteristics? Why or why not?

DaddyStone13 · 2024-10-14T16:23:44+00:00

more proof that "just work on yourself" does not work when every man tries to improve

AutoModerator · 2024-10-14T15:52:53+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

AutoModerator · 2024-10-14T15:52:53+00:00

Hi OP,

You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. PPD has guidelines for what that involves.

OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.

An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:

Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;

Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;

Focusing only on the weaker arguments;

Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.

Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

CautiousAd6242 · 2024-10-14T16:19:17+00:00

Whit what type of women should these super Chad 20% of alpha males reproduce? What are the female counterpart criteria?

ThanosSnapsSlimJims · 2024-10-14T17:42:11+00:00

If you mean that the top 20% of women should reproduce with the top 20%, while letting the bloodlines of the rest disappear, then you might at least sound fair.

EugeneCezanne · 2024-10-14T18:14:13+00:00

Wouldn't this be bad for genetic diversity?

It's also most likely that quite a lot of populations of the world would be effectively annihilated. Even if you imagine that each woman should just share the top men for breeding, access to those men is restricted by various social and economic factors, and those conditions would not allow such men to be good fathers.

We live in a capitalist world, children living in poverty have consistently poor health outcomes.

Capitalism requires an underclass: not everyone can be advantaged. Moreover, it requires robust markets for products, which is why we fear population shrinkage.

Evening-Barracuda740 · 2024-10-14T18:44:18+00:00

Your plan would fail by the very fact that the top percentage of men would only want to mate and have children with the top percentage of women

Wide-Illustrator2906 · 2024-10-14T19:29:56+00:00

They......already do.

Cultural-Ad-8486 · 2024-10-14T20:06:01+00:00

The problem with your approach is that it is stillborn from the start and did not work even for our ancestors when they were less numerous. We as a species literally NEED genetic diversity and also CANNOT allow inbreeding and CANNOT conduct constant crossbreeding of very attractive, smart, genetically gifted people in some way). After all, in all these cases, the degeneration of these positive qualities and a complete collapse of the health and survival of the offspring will occur very quickly.

And this doesn’t even take into account that we as a species always practiced serial monogamy from the very beginning and most members of the tribe who behaved socially responsibly (hardworking and peaceful) could reproduce, and even if someone had some kind of defects, they could reproduce if the conditions were met.

We have no evidence of the existence of harems from chads where only 20% of the population reproduced, but we do have good evidence that the majority could reproduce.

Gods, we even defeated our other competing human species precisely due to the fact that we all multiplied intensively. This is exactly how, for example, we, as a species of Cro-Magnons, displaced and/or absorbed the Neanderthals, who could not reproduce as successfully and quickly and create large societies, and this despite the fact that the Neanderthals were with us at almost the same technological level of development and much greater physical strength and adaptability.

So no, evolution and natural selection work for us a little differently than you described

Azn_Sex_Fiend · 2024-10-15T00:24:33+00:00

The problem is that women don't actually DESIRE men, even if they "want" the top 10-20%, they still don't actually DESIRE men physically, they just aim to manipulate the top 20% for the sake of their own benefit or their offspring or something.

Artistic_Speech_1965 · 2024-10-15T05:26:09+00:00

I see where you are going. Indeed human are more than animals or pure genes. I promote better educations for a better world

John_Oakman · 2024-10-14T16:53:19+00:00

Yes your points are eloquently made and based upon the highest of moral virtues but consider [threat of violence].

What's the incentive of the bottom 80% of males (all the low value males) to continue to contribute into such a system? Genuine moral virtues wholly independent of worldly/material results will only convince a small fraction of those so the rest will have to be dealt with one way or the other.

Circle_of_Steel_ · 2024-10-14T17:34:31+00:00

The funniest part about this is not the fact that this is so obviously bait/troll posting. Its the fact that you will see women who say they hate red pill and black pill ideology unironically come out of the wood work to agree and defend this. Honestly most of the women here are not worth responding to. Many of the reasonable women have rightly left, logical and non extreme men should take the hint and do the same. Also you really do not understand evolution, specifically *human* evolution that well.

KGmagic52 · 2024-10-14T18:27:58+00:00

Pure misandry.

RecentDegree7990 · 2024-10-14T16:11:34+00:00

The problem is that you think that those High status men would want you

Electric_Death_1349 · 2024-10-14T18:03:01+00:00

“The top 20% of men” narrative originates from a two decade old survey of OkCupid users, and which only the terminally online are even aware of.

This is obviously a troll/rage bait post, but since the flare requires that I engage with it; normal people don’t think like this - normal people date, form relationships and start people with whom they’re mutually attracted and with whom they form a connection. Your pseudo-scientific eugenics nonsense doesn’t enter the equation.

There is also the obvious flaw that the top 20% of men - supposing they even exist in the way you describe - are only going to be interested in their female counterparts, thus excluding 80% of women from the dating pool - is that what you’re advocating?

ComfortableJeans · 2024-10-14T18:38:58+00:00

I mean, we could go down the eugenics route, (eugenics the arranging of reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable), but if we're not allowing the bottom 80%-85% of men to reproduce, we would also have to restrics the bottom 80%-85% of women, also.

Her genetics are just as much in play as his are.

By the same logic, those bottom 80%-85% of women would only be muddying those 20%-15% mens genetics.

If we want to push the boat out even further on that one, genetically speaking, a person actually carries more of his/her mother's genes than his/her father's. As the mother also passes mitochondrial DNA and gut bacteria to the child, which the father cannot do.

So we could argue that an even lower percentage of women should be allowed to reproduce than men, if we're being very persnickety.

I'm sure we could also make the argument that in the modern day, if a woman isn't able to secure her own high level of resources, is she really top 20%-15% of women? I'd think surely not. And after all, we live in a capitalist world. Should a top 20%-15% man really be saddling himself down with a dead financial weight that isn't able to secure her own large amount resources? That's just a bad idea.

Evolutionarily, it is the wisest choice.

Just to be clear, I don't agree with any of this. I don't think the world should be set up this way. I just write this to illustrate how shitty this way of thinking is, and how poisonous it is to having a true, caring, loving relationship. The rules we apply to others, should also be applied to ourselves.

If you're not able to meet your own standard, you're being ridiculous.

Gravel_Roads · 2024-10-14T16:00:03+00:00

Funny how the only people who write screeds about “women having high standards” are the people who have nothing to make them stand out.

Like sure, bro, if a woman was more open to dating low-tier men, she would be more open to dating you… but she’d also be more willing to date the man standing next to you, and behind you and everyone on the bus…

At which point you’d call her a slut.

emax4 · 2024-10-14T16:18:14+00:00

Hmm, I think you need to look up the definition of altruistic and see why your thoughts contradict that definition. Others in this case includes the other 80%.

Werkgxj · 2024-10-14T16:18:24+00:00

How would you determine who the top 20% are?

How would such a policy be enforced?

What would the exact benefits be compared to the way it is now?

In the past when a policy to force a change in people's reproductive behaviour was introduced the result was usually catastrophic.

Radiant-Survey-9471 · 2024-10-14T16:20:02+00:00

I agree but it means that few man can procreate with any women and a lot of men will feel very frustrated not getting offspring and blame it on women: so more misogony. Plus: how to select a good father? Many men will say or do anything to convince a woman he is worth her attention.

PurplePillDebate-ModTeam · 2024-10-14T16:35:32+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Valuable-Marzipan761 · 2024-10-14T16:39:02+00:00

Healthy is a good trait to select fro, but there's no benifit to breeding a taller population every generation. The top 20% financially don't necessarily have the resources to support 5 women and their children each, which is what they'd need to do.

harmonica2 · 2024-10-14T16:43:46+00:00

Why is it in males seem to have a far less standard when it comes to their offspring compared to women?

Women want the best genes but it seems like all men care about for their children's genes is as long as the woman has a vagina and a pulse, that's good enough?

Quirrelwasachad · 2024-10-14T17:17:26+00:00

You just want hypergamy lol. Evolution would be telling all the women with

1) Bad genetics

2) Lack of resources

3) Bad personality traits

To not date. Stop taking away the attractive men with you, you short, poor, autistic failure of a women. Let humanity evolve. Do as OP says.

Savings-Bee-4993 · 2024-10-14T17:27:29+00:00

The problem is that functionally such a hypothetical imperative is not rational or pragmatic.

The characteristics you describe are not all on equal footing or contained in the top 15% of men — more like top 1%, since the values, personalities, and capital you address conflict in reality — nor would such a program be allowed or result in the society you envision.

Women do have a rational and evolutionary imperative to shoot for the top, but other normative concerns like intelligence, morality, creativity, etc. are arguably more important for the flourishing of the human race.

AcephalicDude · 2024-10-14T18:23:34+00:00

Don't you really just mean to say "I should aim to reproduce with the top 20% of men because that's what I want for myself"?

PayStreet2298 · 2024-10-14T20:45:07+00:00

I am at that point in enlightenment where I say, do what you want.

Reasonable_Corner624 · 2024-10-15T01:25:38+00:00

OP doesn't know there's a direct correlation between polygamy and violent crime/war.

source

In any case, I'm all for it. Someone hand me the popcorn so I can watch lol.

man-frustrated · 2024-10-15T02:28:38+00:00

This is what qualifies as "blue pill" now?

Snoo71180 · 2024-10-15T02:50:12+00:00

Obviously only the top 20% of women (attractive, physically fit, educated and financially independent, maternal and is willing to be a mother not just rely on her husband to pay for a nanny while she doesn't work etc.) are the women we're talking about right? Because everyone wants to level up in their relationships but that's not reality so this is a fantasy wish I guess.

This is hilarious because those 3 requirements are subjective and every woman would not agree as to which men they think are healthy, have a good physique, is the right height, and is attractive. 2 - You need to quantify what "financially stable" means? The top 20% of women actually want to have a productive life and purpose yet your requirement assumes the man is supposed to be financially responsible for the family. You just eliminated most women that a top tier man even wants unless you are incredibly hot, maternal and willing and able to raise kids, and maintain your physique and appearance. Most women in the US are obese so half of females are immediately ineligible for the top 20% of men.

Women with attitudes like this and feel entitled to the top 20% of men will be expected to raise the kids, maintain a household that meets his standards, and be attractive and stay in shape. The top 20% of men will spend a lot of their time working to provide items in #2 and won't be able to be Mr. Mom as described in #3.

OP also has no basis in reality but that's a fun wishlist. Also she clearly hasn't interacted with or doesn't know many wealthy men that meet these criteria because they are the most likely to cheat, be disengaged with the children because they have hired help, and are more likely to be part of the 50% of marriages that end in divorce, even though women initiate about 80% of divorces.

It's a nice list for Santa Clause and very cute but so irrational that it's laughable. This sense of entitlement that women who are a 4, 5 or 6, and provide no real benefit to a man who is a 9 or 10 is a great indicator of mental instability.

BowelMan · 2024-10-15T11:44:08+00:00

Honestly, with climate change going unchecked and biodiversity loss going rampant, it's only a matter of time before humanity goes extinct.

Global societal collapse by 2040-2050 and human extinction or near term human extinction in a couple hundred years.

These days I'm here mostly for entertainment.

untamed-italian · 2024-10-15T15:17:18+00:00

Women SHOULD only aim to reproduce with the top 20% of men

Hey, a eugenics post. Neat.

Women SHOULD aim to only reproduce with the top 20% of men.

Just by the fact that your first sentence repeats the title, I can already tell that the top 20% of men are not interested in you.

fleshcrayon · 2024-10-16T00:37:34+00:00

This would lead to collapse.

fleshcrayon · 2024-10-16T05:27:45+00:00

I wonder what the rape rate would be?

UnionBlueMudkip · 2024-10-14T16:14:52+00:00

Maybe if your post said the top 20% of women should only reproduce with the top 20% of men this would make sense. An attractive man impregnating an unattractive/unhealthy/poor woman also leads to children suffering.

It seems like you kinda think only men have bad genes/genetics which is weird cause you keep talking about evolution.

winter_ro · 2024-10-14T16:26:48+00:00

This is actually the natural order of things without the regulation of monogamy. The 1:1 pairing system was meant to help average men and ensure they had options or at least a chance of getting something by forcing women to apply down the ladder for an ‘available’ man.

This is why I cringe when average men promote infidelity, it interrupts a system that was meant to help them.

Polygamy would not look the way they think it does. It would look much like what you described. If women weren’t forced to seek down the ladder, we’d all flock to and try to be w/ only that top 20%. If a man was not in the top 15% of genetics and wealth, he’d hardly ever have a willing woman.

ArtifactFan65 · 2024-10-14T19:57:56+00:00

Agree but you just described a beta. Alphas are antisocial.

nonedat · 2024-10-15T12:11:37+00:00

Good genetics (healthy, good physique, good height, attractive)

Resources (financially stable, able to financially take care of his partner and kids)

Personality traits that align with being a good father and partner (involved, caring, nurturing, prosocial and altruistic, committed)

What if I have all of those except I'm 5'7?

SovereignFemmeFudge · 2024-10-18T00:33:43+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Women SHOULD only aim to reproduce with the top 20% of men

Comments

Females can maximise the return on the energy they invest in reproduction by selecting and mating with the best males.

Title	Women SHOULD only aim to reproduce with the top 20% of men
Author	IHaveABigDuvet
Upvotes	0
Comments	465
Date	October 14, 2024 3:52 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1g3j454/women_should_only_aim_to_reproduce_with_the_top/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/women-should-only-aim-to-reproduce-with-the-top-20.1533145 https://theredarchive.com/post/1533145