~ archived since 2018 ~

CMV: The source of all the problems between the sexes grows from being a tournament species, and the solution is to genetically modify the species to be monogamous style

Quick_Question_guy

June 23, 2018

6 upvotes

I don't think I'm really red pill or blue pill, but probably lean more towards the red side. I don't really use this website too much either, nor this sub.
Humans are a hybrid sexual species. We have members who are able to pair bond and form monogamous relationships, you can perform brain scans on certain people and analyze the way dopamine binds in the D1 and D2 nucleus accumbens and how pair bonding behavior emerges from this.

Most people, however, are tournament style sexuality, and humans have been a tournament style species for most of our evolutionary history. This is no longer needed in the modern era, is violence against men, and as we develop more sophisticated gene-modding techniques for humans, we should, and have a moral imperative to, eliminate tournament style selection from the species and implement monogamous pair-bonding for everyone. A form of technocratic soft-eugenics.

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	CMV: The source of all the problems between the sexes grows from being a tournament species, and the solution is to genetically modify the species to be monogamous style
Author	Quick_Question_guy
Upvotes	6
Comments	171
Date	June 23, 2018 5:09 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/8tbcog/cmv_the_source_of_all_the_problems_between_the/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/cmv-the-source-of-all-the-problems-between-the.261801 https://theredarchive.com/post/261801

Comments

[–]DesignerDebates3 small children in a trench coat[M] [score hidden] 8 years ago stickied comment (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PhotosyntheticChad9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (55 children) | Copy Link

[–]hammerhauntsbread pill4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]PhotosyntheticChad4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PhotosyntheticChad2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]2-3-or-not-2-3 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]says_harsh_thingsRed Pill - Chad0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhraze1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]DareyFathom0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhraze0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]blackedoutfast 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth[M] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

we shouldn't help anyone. we can't have winners without losers, the losers may be sad about having the bad luck to born as inferior failures, but that's just luck. they just as easily could have been born as a genetically gifted winner.

but what you're proposing is to eliminate the whole competition and hand out participation trophies to everyone. rewarding losers by taking away from the winners doesn't just hurt the winners, it hurts everyone and makes a mockery of billions of years of evolution.

the main reason that modern humans basically stopped evolving several thousand years ago is the whole stupid complete monogamy for life paradigm that thankfully we have started to cast aside, but for some reason you want to bring it back

genociding all of the failures who should be genetic dead ends, while allowing the genetically superior "Chads" to have harems of women and to reproduce in large numbers is the way to drive humanity forward.

if a man is too weak or socially incompetent or has inferior bone structure and can't even go out and get laid, what makes you think he would be anything but a liability for the rest of us as humans hopefully move forward to conquer the universe.

we wouldn't necessarily need to kill all of the incels and other failures, we could simply castrate them so they could serve a purpose. some incels and losers could be allowed to live as harmless, asexual eunuch like creatures working as servants and laborers for the sexually successful "Chads" and their harems.

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

You're solution, again, involves believing that tournament based selection is the best or the only one. Plus you forget that there is no strong change in evolution of our species not because of monogamous strategies, but because we dominated the environment in general and lost the need to adapt to it, rather we adapt the environment to us. You also assume women make proper decisions (they do not, the fisherian runaway is flawed). You forget that we can create a monogamous species as well as genemod intelligence. You simply fetishize pain and competition, because perhaps you believe yourself to be a winner (you are not).

You make the false assumption there's such a thing as genetic superiority or inferiority, there is not, especially in a world of gene modification. You assume conquering the universe is dichotomous with monogamous strategies.

Overall, you don't understand what you're talking about.

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

There is no such thing as negative genetic load

Actually, there is.

There is only survival

Survival is best with aggressive males who strive to outcompete each other for women. Women are most safe with an aggressive male and men are also most safe by being aggressive and victorious.

Monogamous based strategies are just as efficient a reproductive strategy

According to who? Clearly since the institution of monogamy, societies genetic load has increased with entirely useless people full of diseases and low intelligence.

fact produce brilliant phenotypes and amazing creatures - look at the beautiful feather patterns of many birds.

Except many birds aren't monogamous. And they produce beautiful feather patterns to demonstrate a lower genetic load --> higher fitness --> outcompete other males for mates. Feather patterns are very costly to maintain and demonstrate that a male can be successful DESPITE the limitations imposed by his bright plumage.

Humans are at no risk of losing our domination if we switch to a monogamous larger-female species.

Actually we are.

In fact, I venture to say with this obsolete reproductive baggage eliminated, we will all be more focused on expanding out, cooperatively. Culture is not at risk.

You are wrong. Because genetically there will be less genetic variation due to less reproduction.

And it doesn't matter what you want - biology dictates otherwise. You think like a smelly feminist that human nature can be changed by nurture - it cannot.

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guy1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guy1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

monogamy created the vast majority of civilization

no it didn't. all of the earlier civs were polygamous.

there are already monogamous pair bonding

its only for the raising of the kids for the first few years and then men move on.

. I'm talking about engineering humans to be naturally monogamous.

That's retarded. and you can't engineer them because what happens in one country won't happen in another. so that means that non-engineered humans will have an advantage.

Like dude, the dark ages were caused by rats spreading the plague,

that was a consequence of christianity and monogamy which said that humans don't need to bathe because its a sin. this was the exact opposite when humans needed to compete for mates (ie non-monagmous in classical societies).

the dark ages were caused by the collapse of rome, which was caused by the spread of the christian religion which advocated monogamy, which made romans weak and have fewer children, compared to polygamous barbarian societies that brought down rome.

I also doubt you understand genetics or math at the level I do, I'll explain later today, I'm busy for a while and on my phone. Also, understand I'm smarter than you, and better educated.

baha don't make me laugh. you thought that the dark ages were cause by plague. you're not more educated than me. what's your degree? liberal arts?

[–]Quick_Question_guy1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guy2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Being correct has nothing to do with what the majority of ignorant people believe.

you do realize that knowing math (assuming you speak truly and aren't showing off to random internet people) does not make you 'more intelligent' than others - as you simply learn information, it does not mean you can find unorthodox solutions to common problems or that you can synthesize disparate pieces of information.

the society I'm describing is beyond anything that could have existed in the past

you're describing a fully monogamous society. this has been done in the past were most of society had one woman. it failed. you bring up morality. morality is entirely made up to benefit those in power. if you believe in 'morality' (this is what christianity dictates, look how well that worked out) you are nothing but a little slave.

[–]Quick_Question_guy1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Monogamous societies also did not necessarily fail, to say that a society that practiced monogamy and fell did so because it practiced monogamy is incredibly simplistic and stupid.

Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

And monogamy is often implemented in a society when it nears collapse.

You do not understand sexual selection strategies or how dna combination works well enough to warrant speaking about this stuff, it's obvious from your posts.

LOL. I'm in medicine. I understand this shit better than you. If you think you can engineer monogamy into society (which is a complex trait - if you even know what that is), you are deluded.

Monogamous societies also did not necessarily fail

Look at history. All monogamous societies failed and the trend is toward greater disorder as with everything else in nature. All successful societies moved towards polygamy. And monogamy when they neared collapse/collapsed.

[–]ThrashSurf1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hammerhauntsbread pill1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ercole_ʇlɐʍɐ2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pope_LuciousSeparating the wheat from the hoes1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ercole_ʇlɐʍɐ0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hammerhauntsbread pill-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PhotosyntheticChad0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]ffapod 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth[M] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ffapod 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth[M] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPole 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ffapod 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth[M] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ffapod 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth[M] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ffapod1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cuckleberry-FinnBlue pilled alpha chad0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ercole_ʇlɐʍɐ5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Five_DecadesKnows what women want. Knows he doesn't have it2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Theseus_The_KingI’m a lady king dang nammit!0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Five_DecadesKnows what women want. Knows he doesn't have it1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Theseus_The_KingI’m a lady king dang nammit!0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]2-3-or-not-2-3 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]2-3-or-not-2-3 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]2-3-or-not-2-3 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Workaholico 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That would be disastrous.

much of the mens strife for success is because womens sexual behavior. Without that, men would not be the best in all they are, and we would lose the biggest minds, so no more Albert Einstein's, and we would have way too many complacent men who will not work toward nothing in particular because they already have one partner and have no need for any more.

Much of womens sexual behavior is to ensure the human race evolution, and guarantee a working society, without this, societies would completely stop evolving and wars left and right as there is no reason to be worried your woman would leave you if you join the revolution of the idiots.

The reason we don't work on our hormones so we are super humans is because this would make havok in out entire bodies, same thing with society, do not change it without knowing the entirety of effects and guaranteeing you can accept the consequences, otherwise you are destroying a working society for a havok of a society

[–]ThorLivesSkeptical Purple Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I think most of this is conjecture.

First, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that humanity has evolved much (intellectually) in the past 100,000 years. (There have been some changes with stuff like digesting milk into adulthood and genes for fighting disease.)

There doesn't seem to be any evidence that people with better genes have more children. In fact, the people in the US with the most children are people with less than a high-school education:

"By the time women reach the 40-44 age group, those who didn’t finish high school averaged 2.56 births per 1,000 women, the highest fertility. Women who finished high school or had any college experience had the next highest fertility, 1.88 and 1.91, respectively. Women who finished college had the lowest fertility — 1.75 births among those with a bachelor’s degree and an even-lower 1.67 for those with graduate degrees, the bureau found."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/9/education-level-inversely-related-to-childbearing/

As far as men, there seems to be either no correlation or a negative correlation between education, IQ and number of children.

Gay men seem to do quite well producing things, even though they have easy access to casual sex.

Isaac Newton produced quite a lot in his lifetime, and doesn't appear to have ever dated a woman.

I actually think that men's pursuit of women and sex can be a distraction from things like education - because men are spending a lot of time and effort trying to meet women that could've been spent on other things (like education). The desire for sex can cause men to think on a short-term basis, which can short-circuit long-term pursuits (like higher education). I've even heard RedPillers say that the pursuit of women was a big distraction in their earlier life, and that it might be part of the reason that men drop out of high-school more frequently than women and are attaining fewer college degrees than women.

Personally, when I think about the most productive years in my life (with education or work), it's generally times when I'm not pursuing women or even thinking much about it.

[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

It would depend on who they bond with.

Free will isn't compromised after the transition is made. I care about them, but not over eliminating the obsolete strategy.

Brutality does not need to be violent. That large swaths of men and some women are left out of love for no logical reason (as again, we can easily solve this) does not need to exist, it's brutal and obsolete. There are a shitload of animal species you can look at that are monogamous and breed for life, there is no reason to say our unfair system is better when it's clearly not.

The only reason you'd disagree, is because you're evil and believe many people should suffer just because they don't have "good genes" according to an obsolete strategy and a fisherian runaway (that isn't even optimizing a proper phenotype for our environment).

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

How are you supposed to cement this alleged pairbonding? What if a man falls for a married woman? He's screwed because of your pair bonding!

Better yet, what happens to people who pick poor partners? They are now doomed to them for life. That's a brilliant way to eliminate happiness.

How about what happens when someone is raped? Does the pair bonding trigger then? Great, you're attached to a rapist? Let's make it worse, and drag pedophiles into the situation. You're going to magically erase sexual violence and sexual deviance from the world?

Hell, even if you have a relatively happy couple but they have completely opposite interests sexually or ways of living that are not reconcilable, they cannot leave by your system.

I'm sorry about calling you evil, but in the end your system damns many millions of people to loneliness, while mine eliminates it.

My system allows people to make mistakes and grow. And I'm not so sure we don't still need men to be forced into being strong.

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]carefreevermillion1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guy1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ah, quite reasonable.

In the end, we would establish a grand supercomputer and algorithm that takes the dna and personal profile of a person, and perfectly (as perfect as possible) and pair them. The way dna combination works, is that there IS NO SUCH THING AS "good" genes, just combos. Everyone has a person who's genetic material is a perfect match for offspring. Plus, people are already doing the personality part with dating websites that make you fill out long questionaires, and funnel you good matches based on that (and it's quite effective, far more effective than random selection by just meeting people). It would only take a few tries to find a perfect match.

The best part is, because everyone has been engineered to be monogamous, the very idea of doing it in a different way would be considered laughably inefficient, and the idea of tournament selection would be considered disgusting and brutal and animalistic, something lowly animals do and not civilized sapient humans. Plus now everyone gets love and a family.

EDIT: also note that the supercomputer matching dna combos is not far off at all.

[–]carefreevermillion1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guy1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]carefreevermillion1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guy1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]carefreevermillion1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guy1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]carefreevermillion1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guy1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]carefreevermillion1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guy1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]carefreevermillion1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guy1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]carefreevermillion1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guy1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]carefreevermillion1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guy1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThrashSurf1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guy1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]carefreevermillion1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guy1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Altering an adult isn't easy, the few techniques we have are cumbersome. The best one involves taking their DNA, growing it in a culture, mixing it with like an oxygengas, and having them breath in a gas mask so their lungs and bloodstream pick up all the new dna viruses and carries it throughout the body into every cells, so it can inject the new dna into the nucleus of the cells and then over the course of a few weeks replace all their cells and old dna with the new code. I don't think you can do this with an adult without their consent, but people can be persuaded. But for the zygotes, we can do it and we should.

The pair bonding would probably kick in during sex, so people would place a huge emphasis on it, and the dating scene during your young adult life would be more serious.

I hope you slept well :)

[–]carefreevermillion1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guy1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]carefreevermillion1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm sorry! I didn't mean it to be weird or in a weird way, just like a have a nice day or something. I guess it's not the same, sorry.

It's okay, I knew your intentions were pure lol.

I think it's pretty clear that I don't really care about that stuff that just holds us back. I'm not a physician either, I studied mathematics in undergrad and I'm going into either bio informatics or something similar.

I know, but I think the moral ramifications of ignoring a person's right to choose what happens to their body is more important than ending the tournament drive.

Pair bonding doesn't start until puberty, plus rape happens in any system and is bad, and why would you rape someone when you already have a loving partner?

I guess that saves the children but now you have to contend with an adult who is pair bonded to a child. Additionally, teenagers have raped one another. If you're not pairing them off once they have a sex drive (in some children that can like 10/11 years old) then you have to have a solution to pubescent rape.

[–]ThrashSurf1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]carefreevermillion1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThrashSurf1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThrashSurf0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThrashSurf0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThrashSurf0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThrashSurf0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]celincelinNeeds to be taught not to rape1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThrashSurf1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThrashSurf0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]says_harsh_thingsRed Pill - Chad3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GayLubeOilTrue Red Pill1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmoothBeliever4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Tournament Style Sexuality prevents losers from reproducing.

Female sexual selection is the last line of defense in a decaying society. It's supposed to be unfair and it's doing it's job great.

You're on some bullshit with that - here's why.

Guys like me, skinny fat and shy, can get laid. By all definitions I'm a loser yet I still have women who find me attractive.

There are also drug dealers, psychos, other shut ins etc. Who are get laid. Random drug guys at raves. Guys who don't even approach. Numale losers get laid (even if they get cucked) and often reproduce, making autistic children.

Honestly Guys who complain about how hard it is to get must not even be trying. Thanks to slut approval and cock csrouseling, even loser degenerates like myself get a piece of tail.

At the same time. I have friend with a physique I wish I had the will to develop, yet they can't get laid for shit.

Female sexuality is completely random.

By all definitions I should he the incel, and my body building friend should be getting laid, but that's not the way it is.

Unless you mean "winner" by mindstate.

[–]GayLubeOilTrue Red Pill0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmoothBeliever0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]GayLubeOilTrue Red Pill1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmoothBeliever0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]GayLubeOilTrue Red Pill0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmoothBeliever0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]GayLubeOilTrue Red Pill0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmoothBeliever0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What im reading is the mighty genius GayLubeOil is flabbergasted someone actually proved them wrong about female sexual reproductive habits with the unignorable evidence that women reproduce with whatever male they feel like - despite "worthiness" or "winner/loser factors"

long story short you can be a loser and still get laid / reproduce - women's reproductive strategies are not "beneficial" to society.

When left unchecked and uncontrolled, women will fuck, have sex with, and reproduce with any and all kinds of males, including losers. This is why gangbangs exist. Every male gets a turn with the tribe's whore.

I thank God for feminism and the sexual liberation movement - if Sluts were still being shamed, I would never get laid!

Edit: in fact, the cock carousel would not exist if "losers" weren't getting laid - you think it's only winners these stacies are fucking on their trips to cancun? LOL don't make me laugh. It's random waiters with no prospects.

[–]GayLubeOil1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SmoothBeliever1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]GayLubeOilTrue Red Pill1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]GayLubeOilTrue Red Pill1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GayLubeOilTrue Red Pill1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fedora-of-Euphoria0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GayLubeOilTrue Red Pill2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mossiness 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]yaseedog will hunt1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mossiness 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]yaseedog will hunt0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThorLivesSkeptical Purple Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]newName543456went volcel0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quick_Question_guyTechnocratic Love[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]newName543456went volcel0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link