~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
Five_Decades
[removed]
[–]Endorsed Contributoralways-be-closing2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
'Fitness' is the likelihood of an organism's makeup to result in their survival in an environment, and their successful reproduction.
From Darwin, we know that biological change is not entirely random (there is random 'genetic drift' too) but the interplay of environmental, and sexual selection (if a species has sexual reproduction) pressures on a population of organisms, not just changes in individuals, which are inherited - - that is to say, evolution is a species level phenomenon as a system-wide result of individual reproductive successes, and those reproductive successes are dictated by how well an organism can survive in an environment to reproduce.
The propagation of a biological pattern, at its core, the DNA, is entirely dependent on how well what it codes for will go on to reproduce.
Not all reproduction is sexual, but evolution still happens:
Drug resistance in bacteria is not a result of strong male bacteria resisting the action of a molecule that binds to a vital protein for a cell process living on while weak male bacteria that can't express efflux pumps die, and therefore the female bacteria only reproduce with the males - - there is no gender, they asexually reproduce.
But the imperfections of genetic asexual reproduction done en masse and at a high rate do lead to changes in bacterial populations, and against a selective pressure (like the presence of an antibiotic), those which don't die will be the ones to propagate and they'll be 'resistant' to the drug.
Macroscopic animals almost entirely reproduce sexually.
Instead of a cell dividing over and over producing 2N subsequent copies with only incidental variation in an environment, macroscopic animals, like humans, separate the chromosomes of the entire genome, the entirety of the DNA that is in each cell and tells them what to do, into two different genders.
Males have sperm, females have eggs.
The alleles, the variations of genes that are on each sperm and egg, are randomized, and the recombine only when sperm and egg unite.
Thus, not every sibling is identical to the others, and each offspring of a man and woman, though a son or daughter, is not a copy of themselves either!
This recombination of genetic code produces even more variation, absurd levels of variation, and allows the natural, environmental, and sexual selection pressures that dictate evolutionary success or failure (offspring or no offspring), much more fine tuning to an environment - - much better biological fitness.
But not all species have the same strategy:
Google r/K selection
There is rate strategy and Capacity (K from German, because like EKGs for electroc(K)ardiograms, they figured this out and named it) strategy.
Insects follow a rate strategy.
There is very little investment, though again, there is in fact the evolution of sex, in insect babies by insect parents. They even occasionally eat them if its convenient (this happens in some mammals too, but not nearly as often).
But insects are prolific.
They are rate selectors:
Output so many goddamn units that some will survive, and fit well to the environment.
This is somewhat like bacteria's approach.
Other species are mostly K, capacity.
They must invest a great deal of time and biological resources into their offspring, but those few offspring are very strong.
No elephant mother has an output like an ant-queen.
But she doesn't need to - - her few calves will, male and female, be large brained, social animals, with musculature and caloric intake rivaled only by whales and formerly by dinosaurs.
But r/K is not a paradigm strictly related to species identity.
Gender identity matters also.
A female pregnancy lasts 9 months, and renders her physically unable to provide for herself to any real degree, and very vulnerable to attack. Furthermore, the window of fertility, of ovarian quality eggs a woman can produce, is very short compared to her sexually mature lifetime.
There is a large investment and vulnerability a female primate has to commit to in order to fulfill her biological imperative of reproduction, and furthermore, resource provision to her young is not something her body can do alone.
She has the mammaries to feed them milk, but does she have the muscles and bone density to exhaustion hunt an animal, thrust a spear through it, drag the meat back to its home, butcher and eat it?
No.
Nor does she need to.
Because the evolutionary pressures that dumbly, blindly created female primates like a female gorilla (go look up pictures), made male primates like male gorillas (go look up pictures.
The females are big and hairy, whatever - - but the males are huge and look like killers.
And kill they do, for resources and mates. They kill the other children of their competing males when they banish them and take their women. They play with their own children and make sure they're fed.
r/K in large, multicellular, sexually reproducing animals is why women ovulate once a month, but men produce millions of sperm over and over and over again.
The male is sexually prolific, the female sexually choosy.
There is no anatomical male marker of his sexual choice.
The female chimp, elephant, manatee, whale, and horse retain this feature of evolution as well.
Female choosiness of sexual relations, male choosiness of resource investment, is the state of nature.
Females attempting to find the very best mates so their children live on (sometimes referred to in evolutionary biology as the sexy son hypothesis), and men trying to find any mate, is the state of nature, for our species.
Evolution made us like this.
Civilization was the answer to it.
Ursine and Canine evolution to cold makes them acquire new coats of fur in the winter.
The glory of human evolution is a brain so powerful that it can develop language and transmit culture, and instead of requiring a long term rewrite of its own genetic code to better fit an environment - - -skin another animal and wear a coat.
Our markers of civilization from clothing, to farming, to city building, to refrigeration, to air conditioning, to water purification:
These are all responses to the basic evolutionary problems of resource scarcity (of food, of thermodynamic comfort against the elements, of safety from predators), which interfere with the issue of sexual reproduction and the perpetuation of our offspring.
Marriage is a formalization of sexual resource allocation for all males, so that they don't need to compete, so that they can focus on those other things, delivering profoundly greater results of resource availability and production than our animal cousins could ever dream of.
But technology has now enabled, through birth control, and other attention/adoration conferring means a female sexual strategy that goes unchecked by resource reality.
Instead of the females all competing for a single strong alpha male and many children being born to him, a brutal state of nature which produces strong people and weeds out weak males...
...and instead of a civilized society's dictum of marriage to control the sexual reproduction resource fight....
...we now have operating the old sexual strategy with a novel sexual result:
Mass non-fertility, and mass-hypergamy, all at once.
The pregnancy penalty for hypergamy is removed by technology, just as the economic reward for output instead of competition is removed by societal change.
Both have happened to our society, and both are harming it.
Lower fertility rates, fewer marriages, broken economies, etc.
All of it the result of the large scale technological tampering of a societal re-engineering of a basic biological reality, without a concurrent social redesign.
Did evolution make us naturally polygamous, so women are holding out for the top men since they always monopolized the women in history?
Yes and no:
Previously, fucking an alpha man would almost certainly result in pregnancy, and very rarely could one do that with a bleeding hymen indicating to that man that children of the union were his and worth biological investment.
Previously as in, prior to civilization, previously.
Women were hypergamous towards men then, also, just as they are in our primate cousins to this very day.
With the advent of civilizations (each large scale one all inventing the ideas of marriage, union, and sexual fidelity for male and female, virgin brides, etc); female hypergamy was checked to create artificial plenty.
With the advent of the sexual revolution, we've restored hypergamy, and the pains of everyone who comes to swallow the redpill are the male realization that the traditional dictates expected of men, however, have not changed to reflect this.
[–]Five_Decades[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
That was a well written evolutionary take on mating and I enjoyed it. I love evolutionary psychology, and if anyone can recommend some books on human behavior (especially as it relates to mating) that comes from that perspective I am open. I enjoy the book 'the moral animal'. I keep wanting to read the naked ape but never get around to it.
Having said that, I guess I am still confused as to my question. Why are some women so strongly attached to their delusionally high smv ratings despite the fact that they have little/no chance to land a man who has those things they think they deserve in a man (because that man can do much better and catch a woman who actually has a high smv, not a mediocre women who has a delusionally high smv)? Is it really as others have said, because high smv males throw them a few no strings attached fucks and beta orbiters are constantly kissing their asses, and it creates a cocoon of delusion for these women about their true smv?
Someone said (I don't know if the post got deleted, I can't find it) that when you look at sexual behavior as a way to ensure a new generaiton of healthy offspring who will reproduce wildly, sexual behavior makes sense. I agree. I remember watching the Osbournes reality TV show and how Jack would get laid all the time. If his dad wasn't Ozzy then he would never get laid. The groupies that threw themselves at Ozzy probably never consciously considered it but if they had kids (especially sons) by Ozzy, those kids would mate more than the kids of some nobody (virtually all of us are nobodies). Uday Hussein got laid thousands of times. He was an evil, barely literate monster but if his dad weren't the dictator of Iraq he would never get laid. Women pursue men who have resources and good genetics because they produce the highest quality offspring who procreate the most.
But what benefit is there to having an unrealistic sense of your own market value to the point where you pass up realistically good opportunities? Every year a woman loses smv. What 'strategy' is served by a woman who is a 4 passing up guys who are 6s, being angry about how she can't find a 'real man' and in 5 years all she has to show for it is now she is a 3 instead of a 4? Or again, do both genders do this? I know some men who are 5s think they deserve a woman who is an 8, and they pass up women who are also 5s in the process and then complain about how they can't get laid.
[–]Endorsed Contributoralways-be-closing0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Why are some women so strongly attached to their delusionally high smv ratings despite the fact that they have little/no chance to land a man who has those things they think they deserve in a man (because that man can do much better and catch a woman who actually has a high smv, not a mediocre women who has a delusionally high smv)?
Look at the movie Trainwreck, look at Sex and the City, look at The Princess Diaries, look at Titanic, Sex and the Single Girl, etc.
Feminism has been a full court press of literature, music (All about that bass), movies, and shows, mixing academia and entertainment, all underlining the notion that "All" women are beautiful (Dove's true beauty campaign is essentially marketing to fat women so they buy stuff too), and that all women deserve everything just by dint of being who they are, and that their decision making should only serve to make them happy now.
Someone said (I don't know if the post got deleted, I can't find it) that when you look at sexual behavior as a way to ensure a new generaiton of healthy offspring who will reproduce wildly, sexual behavior makes sense. I agree.
Agreed - - - the loosening of (artificial) sexual mores post-Sexual Revolution was really a return to the basic state of nature of sexual conduct by women; excluding all but the top men.
But notice; birth control technologies removed what was the Nature check on hypergamy (which was improved by civilization's creation of a further artificial check, through marriage in various forms), so now we have even more and deeper hypergamy.
But what benefit is there to having an unrealistic sense of your own market value to the point where you pass up realistically good opportunities? Every year a woman loses smv
There isn't one.
Cue regret shifting literature, as women bemoan "Why are there no good men?" en masse after reaching their 30s.
It's happening more and more often because more and more markers of 'good men' are falling away as common male success becomes less and less incentivized legally and socially, by hypergamous feminine imperatives.
I know some men who are 5s think they deserve a woman who is an 8, and they pass up women who are also 5s in the process and then complain about how they can't get laid.
Absolutely, but there are legions of men who just want some kind of partner and cannot have one - not until she (and the majority of women) is done riding the cock carousel.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Why wouldn't women be hypergamous? They control the means of reproduction. They also take on all the risks of reproduction (before ole uncle gov came in to save the day). Its perfectly understandable that they would always be looking for the best mate possible. Even when they settle, they're still on the hunt for an upgrade.
[–]Five_Decades[S] 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link
Why are so many delusionally hypergamous? If I were high school educated and unemployed but only held out for jobs that require an mba and paid six figures I'd be unemployed for life. Eventually I'd realize that I need to match my skills to the market.
From what I've seen many women still approach the dating market like they are still young, attractive, low maintenance women when they are not. Why are some so adamantly delusional about their market value and realistic options?
I picked a bad title. A better title would be 'why are many women delusionally hypergamous'
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Because the internet has allowed ugly people to be tricked into thinking they're attractive thanks to thirsty betas
[–]thor_away920 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I reopened my app just to comment how true this is
[–]Philhelm4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
To continue with the metaphor, the high school educated, unemployed woman can get very brief temp positions (Alpha fucks) that would normally require an MBA and pay six figures if the position were permanent, but they will never keep the position so must keep searching for similar temp jobs. They have no reason to work at McDonald's so long as they can continue to find high paying temp jobs.
[–]MonkeyDFreecs0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Because of all the simps desperate to fuck they think they're worth more than they really are.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Humans are nothing if not adaptive and our sexual strategies, for both men and women, will adapt depending on our environment and what are genetics have given us to work with. We don't have one specific sexual strategy like many species do, even if we have an ideal sexual strategy should our fates give us the opportunity to achieve it. For example every man would have a harem full of beautiful virgins if he had his way. And every woman would have a handsome multi billionaire alpha king that was strictly faithful to her. Since both these scenarios are rarely achieved both genders are really compromising. If I had to pin down a sexual strategy that both average men and women subscribe to it would be facade of monogamy while engaging in adulterous affairs. Monogamy for most people is just an insurance policy. If I fuck up at least I've still got whatshis/herface. Most people are going to try aim higher if they think they can get away with it.
[–]trpfieldreport1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
My question is why are so many women delusionally about their market value to the point where they hold out for guys that wouldn't want them, why do they live in a bitter, single bubble rather than make a realistic assessment of their smv?
Women in the western world live in a massive echochamber where "all body sizes are beautiful". You can be a nobody like the girl in Shades of Grey and score a billionaire sex machine. You can be an angsty teenage girl and score a superhero vampire.
Children aren't allowed to fail. They're not allowed to be told to get better. You are not allowed to tell fat kids that they eat too much and play too little.
So women grow up not being held accountable for shit, not being encouraged to be anything useful, and all of popular media tells them that rich, interesting men will come along and be the Prince they deserve.
I think most girls know exactly where they are on the SMP. You've never dated a fat chick or had a friend date a fat chick? MY best friend dated one - she pretended to love her body and be happy, meanwhile she wanted him to call her by other girls (hot as fuck girls) while he was fucking her.
The reason they get away with shit is because beta is the norm. There's a scarce number of alphas shooting fat chicks down and saying "Hell no I don't want any of that sweaty, stank nasty pussy." and an EXCESS of betas willing to suck the nail polish off their toes for a SNIFF of that nasty shit.
Today's women are playing the market the way it's laid out. There's an excessive number of beta males who pedestalize them and treat them like goddesses, so they are entitled to behave as such.
Women will only do what men allow them to. Patrice O'Neil, the fucking man that he was, many times pointed out to women that the only reason they were talking is because the men around her LET HER talk. They will use as much rope as you give them. The men of this culture have given them enough rope to hang all of us.
Or do both genders do that?
Men inevitably face their real SMV, or they settle for a beta-bux life. Women inevitably face theirs post-wall.
[–]ModMachiavellianRed[M] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
/r/asktrp
[–]abdada0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
What culture embraces monogamy???
[–]Five_Decades[S] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Monogamy, either lifelong or serial, is the default value in much of the world.
[–]abdada-2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
What are you talking about? I don't see this at all.
Wait are you talking about what women say they want? You listen to the words of women?
© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]Endorsed Contributoralways-be-closing2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Five_Decades[S] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed Contributoralways-be-closing0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Five_Decades[S] 6 points7 points8 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]thor_away920 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Philhelm4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MonkeyDFreecs0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]trpfieldreport1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ModMachiavellianRed[M] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]abdada0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Five_Decades[S] 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]abdada-2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link