~ archived since 2018 ~

What is the most controversial opinion you hold regarding sex/relationships?

August 31, 2022
13 upvotes

Easily, my most controversial opinion is that there are too many men in the world, and that having a relatively 1:1 ratio of women to men is detrimental. And I'm saying this as a man...

I think humanity as a whole would be a lot better if we had a ratio of maybe 4:3 women to men. This would help reduce the amount of social ills (like conflict and crime) that comes with living in a world that has very high sexual competition amongst men.

How this would be accomplished ethically, I haven't the slightest clue. But I think it would help.

So what is your most controversial opinion?

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Edit: let me elaborate further on why I think this.

Take deer populations for example. Naturally, deers usually have a population ratio of 2:1 female/male. And in hunted populations anywhere between a 3:1 or 4:1 gender ratio.

When this ratio of 2:1 female/male becomes disturbed (as in, too many males), it causes huge problems for the population as a whole. Even in predatory species like wolves, females usually comprise a majority of about 60%-70% of the pack population. And again, if that ratio becomes too distributed, it causes lots of issues like high sexual competition and in-fighting amongst the males, breaking down social cohesion in the pack and effecting thier ability to hunt and survive.

Who is to say we are really so different? Having a relatively 1:1 ratio of women/men world wide may be seriously detrimental for us.

In fact, worldwide there are currently more men than women: https://www.ined.fr/en/everything_about_population/demographic-facts-sheets/faq/more-men-or-women-in-the-world/#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20men%20and,496%20are%20women%20(49.6%25).

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/AllPillDebate.

/r/AllPillDebate archive

Download the post

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

Post Information
Title What is the most controversial opinion you hold regarding sex/relationships?
Author Antisocial_Nihilist
Upvotes 13
Comments 194
Date August 31, 2022 9:32 PM UTC (2 months ago)
Subreddit /r/AllPillDebate
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/AllPillDebate/what-is-the-most-controversial-opinion-you-hold.1139628
https://theredarchive.com/post/1139628
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/AllPillDebate/comments/x2pb4c/what_is_the_most_controversial_opinion_you_hold/
Red Pill terms in post
Comments

[–]Marzipan-Happy 9 points10 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

A good portion of women are vindictive, mean, and cruel. Particularly towards other women.

[–]Glad-Discount-4761 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I agree.That's why it is said," Women are women's enemy .

Amount of times I got fucked up because of my female friends and I didn't even do anything wrong to them

[–]Marzipan-Happy 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

They will tear each other apart and destroy one another if it means getting ahead. I don't do that stuff because I've had it happen to me, and completely fuck me over.

[–]Glad-Discount-4761 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't do that stuff because I've had it happen to me, and completely fuck me over.

Same.I am glad someone admitted it as lots of them were denying it.

One got me fired by lying something about me to boss.

[–]Swapsta 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I think the quote was that "woman understand each other, that's why they hate each other but pretend to get along for their own benefit"

[–]bludkrazeRED AF -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It was actually Al Bundy who said: "Don't try to understand women, women understand women and they hate each other."

[–]Swapsta 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ah

[–]DivineDaedraChadwife 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree. Honestly I think women are just more careful about who sees them being total assholes than men

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The most controversial opinions I held on dating back in 2015-ish are now more or less mainstream. I see literal 15 year old boys on TikTok discussing height and jawline lmao

[–]BumblingBeta 4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Easily, my most controversial opinion is that there are too many men in the world, and that having a relatively 1:1 ratio of women to men is detrimental. And I'm saying this as a man...

It's actually worse than that. 105 men are born for every 100 women. People always say "well men have higher rates of mortality in their younger years" but how? We have advanced medical care and relatively few wars, so how can 5% of men die off before they reach adulthood? It's impossible. Unless I'm missing something.

[–]TheRedPillRipperRedPill 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

It’s actually worse than that

Is that a U.S. based stat? Global? If it’s global, presumably China’s one child policy would have some bearing.

[–]BumblingBeta 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No it's a biological stat. Look it up - 105 boys are born for every 100 girls.

[–]IHateNormis 6 points7 points  (41 children) | Copy Link

Females of all races are white supremacists when it comes to dating

[–]rurunoa 3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

no i prefer south/southeastasians, then everyone except for white people and lastly white men. only white guy i find attractive is tom holland and that’s because of his personality mostly. half white guys get a pass tho

[–]IHateNormis 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Either trolling or extremely unique. South and South East Asian men have the lowest SMV and are made fun of for showing sexual interest. I’m south Asian and females have called me a shitskin to my face many times

[–]rurunoa 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

my bf is southeastasian and in my school are a lot of them and i prefer them over the white boys from my school when i lived in germany. but i have to add that im half southeastasian and half south asian myself. white men just look so plain to me. but i believe many genz woc would agree with me and prefer their own race over white guys

[–]Available-Ad-9338 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Are you only trying to date white women?

females have called me a shitskin to my face many times

bullshit

[–]IHateNormis 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Females of a variety of races have called me that

[–]mymanhenry84052255 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

As a white guy I was going to refute this but I can’t necessarily disagree with you. However, it’s not all women as some do prefer black or Asian men etc. but yes the majority do seem to prefer white men on average with the exception of black women preferring black men.

[–]IHateNormis 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It’s something you are not allowed to say because it makes females look bad

[–]mymanhenry84052255 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Unfortunately, all women have to do is call us sexist or misogynistic to end an argument these days

[–]Asianarcher 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I don’t have the survey but data showed a general in group preference with second always being white

[–]mymanhenry84052255 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

So what’s the first?

[–]Asianarcher 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Their own race. Whatever that being

[–]Glad-Discount-4761 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I wonder if white man weren't in higher status/power but instead it would be asian/black men. Would women still admire them?

[–]IHateNormis 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I personally don’t think it would change. I think the white supremacy is coded in

[–]Lovers691BlackPill 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

same

[–]Antisocial_NihilistRedPill[S] 0 points1 point  (12 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn't say white supremacists per se.

But caucasian people tend to have facial traits like positive canthil tilts and square/broad jawlines that women like. As well as being taller (on average).

[–]IHateNormis 2 points3 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Females like neutral canthal tilts. It’s not a coincidence that females like facial features that are typically white

[–]mymanhenry840522551 points [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

Females don’t prefer positive tilts to neutral?

[–]IHateNormis 0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

No, they want straight. Any tilt looks beta to them

[–]ElectricBugs -1 points0 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Nope

[–]Lovers691BlackPill 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ElectricBugs 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

It's simply that women choose what they know. But they aren't white supremacism

[–]Lovers691BlackPill 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Even non-white women prefer white men over their POC men, I don’t think it is bad or anything, it is what it is but it is a fact that most women of all races(barring black women it is actually inconclusive with them and they sometimes prefer black men) prefer white men to the exclusion of even their own race.

[–]IHateNormis 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

It is an opinion

[–]ElectricBugs -2 points-1 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

It's a very wrong opinion

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Nah I’ll say he’s right

[–]IHateNormis 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Opinions are subjective, they are not meant to be right or wrong by their very nature

[–]HodgekinWhitePill 6 points7 points  (95 children) | Copy Link

All of my opinions are probably controversial. If I had to choose one, it would be woman should get married and have kids at a younger age, like early twenties would be ideal.

[–]Marzipan-Happy 7 points8 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Having had my first at 24, and my last at 33, there is a huge difference in endurance and energy. 33 was just brutal.

[–]TriggurWarning 8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yet another good reason why young people shouldn't waste their youth getting drunk and fucking random people. That energy is meant to be used on raising children.

[–]Marzipan-Happy 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

My last was a happy surprise, and the pregnancy and the birth were physically awful. I wholly attributed that to my age. Getting pregnant now, at 40? Untenable.

[–]TriggurWarning 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

100% I agree. Be well.

[–]HodgekinWhitePill 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

They just don't make them like you no more!

[–]Glad-Discount-4761 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Are you referring to pregnancy or body?

[–]HodgekinWhitePill -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Lol. Referring to her mindset about having children and loving them. Western women are taught to hate children.

[–]TriggurWarning 2 points3 points  (54 children) | Copy Link

Yes, but what should we do as a society to encourage this behavioral change? That's where things get tricky and the conversation gets difficult.

[–]RealNiceLady 5 points6 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

To trigger that change, men need to only date seriously, and stop doing casual.

[–]TriggurWarning 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree! That is part of the goal the policy is meant to achieve.

[–]no_bling_just_dingWhitePill (self aware MSTOW) 0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

kinda hard for men when they know chad gets laid on the first meet for free with no limits. i dont do casual but hey im not accepting consolation prizes

[–]RealNiceLady 2 points3 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Men need to stop thinking about the sex lives of other men and just do their own thing.

[–]HodgekinWhitePill 3 points4 points  (40 children) | Copy Link

For sure. That's why it's so controversial lol. I'm doing my part in just preaching the gospel anywhere I go. I'm just one man, but I'm gonna do it.

[–]TriggurWarning 0 points1 point  (39 children) | Copy Link

My idea years ago is that women that want to go to college need to get married and have 2 kids before they go to college, and we should probably subsidize childcare as an olive branch for the harshness of such a policy change. But it'll never fucking happen, not in our lifetimes at least.

[–]blueberrypie02 4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

who would want to raise two toddlers and also go to college?

[–]InfamousBake1859 4 points5 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Wait, so if women have to have two kids before they go to college…. What do men have to do? Support them? What 20 year old is going to be able to support a family of 4?

[–]no_bling_just_dingWhitePill (self aware MSTOW) 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

sounds like you are suggesting to use taxpayers to bribe women into playing tradwife

im not paying for it

[–]rurunoa 1 point2 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

bro what 💀 id rather go without education and work at mcdonalds

[–]HodgekinWhitePill -2 points-1 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Well, I'm against welfare and daycare in general. So my solution would be to stop subsidizing schools and media. Make everything private. Lower tax ofcourse.

Many public schools can get away with indoctrination because parents are paying unqualified educators to teach their kids through the strong arm of the government.

Also if you stop subsidizing media, these left leaning media outlets would collapse as they have actually very little viewership.

Then to top it off, getting rid of welfare would force woman to align themselves with a good man to help provide for them. Think about it. We subsidizing single mothers as well as bad fathers.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Society isn't structured that way at all though. I actually basically agree: I sure wish I had my all-nighter college energy for baby care. And I think that for a career oriented woman, having kids before finishing up education and starting a career is arguably easier than interrupting it with baby stuff (and she'd have a much, much better understanding of what she wants in terms of work-life balance).

But unless you live in very specific religious groups, it's not a practical thing to pursue. Where would you even meet someone on the same page?

[–]HodgekinWhitePill 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's more of a cultural issue than practical. People have the freewill to do any number of things. The whole career 1st, family 2nd mentality is a western ideology. The rest of the world is family 1st, career 2nd.

People always harp about 2 income being necessary. Actually, 1 income of about 100k can get you very far, even in city centers. Daycare itself is a money sink. A woman raising her own children is equivalent to 80k salary.

Also, having kids is actually more straightforward than choosing a career. How many people do you know switch majors, switch jobs, and switch programs, because they weren't sure of what to do when they were younger? I know 1 woman spent 10 years doing her UNDERGRAD! She wasn't satisfied that the entry position paid only 30k, so she went back to change her major.

Choosing a career and a major can actually be equally unforgiving if you don't know what you want.

To answer your question on where to find such women, it would be outside of western influence, or very conservative areas, where family is valued over career.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh, I totally agree on the practical stuff and then some. The kid then career model is very underrated for women who don't want to be SAHMs permanently but still want kids and want to be involved moms.

I'd also add grandparents being alive to the list. There's a good chance of having involved, energetic grandparents if women are having kids in their early 20s. If everyone has kids more towards 40, you're lucky if grandma is alive to say hi to baby, let alone actually be involved. And involved grandparents are good for their health, for child outcomes, and parental sanity.

The salary stuff is still tricky. It definitely doesn't need to be crazy high: the savings from childcare, from making food from scratch, and from just having time to deal with stuff on your own can be considerable. But you still need an above average salary, which is obviously somewhat exclusive.

See, I'm thinking of where to find such a man. Got to start looking really early if you really want to have kids at peak fertility and all-nighter capability. And most men thought I was weird for wanting kids by 25 (for the grandparents reason). I think my options were religious and maybe one of my Indian friends.

It's also risky for women if there's not a strong level of community or family support. If the marriage goes south when you're young with kids and without a career... It's very hard if there's no safety net for that.

[–]HodgekinWhitePill 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh, I thought you were a man. My mistake.

To find a traditionally minded man, it would be probably the same advice. Outside of western influence or very conservative areas.

Most western men are effeminate and hold no masculine energy. If I was a woman, I wouldn't date a western man that believes in feminism. It's a red-flag.

You're point about grandparents is very intelligent and true. My parents are very busy bodies and work all the time. They rarely helped my wife and I with raising our kids. If you have a strong social network, grandparents can be very helpful indeed! I know when I get older, I will be there for my grandkids! I aspire to be a great father and a great grandpa!

[–]Kappador66 1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Nobody can afford to have kids at that age unless we're going to normalize 10 year + age gap relationships.

[–]HodgekinWhitePill 2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

That's what's wrong with people. Their idolization of money as a precursor to family.

What people want aren't kids, or their kids well being when they talk about money. What they really want is a lifestyle and luxury.

I have two kids, and they couldn't care less about money. What they want is love and affection, a full stomach and a warm place to sleep. You can do that with 50k.

If you work 70 hours a week and make 100k, do you think that money will help serve the best interest of your kids? 1) you're never home. 2) you're way too tired to play. That's all the kids see. That has more of a detrimental effect on a child well being.

[–]Kappador66 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

How the fuck do you think most people live? It's certainly not luxury and lifestyle. Even in their 30s many still struggle to afford a kid or 2.

And kids know very well if they're living in a poor family that can't afford new toys of a summer vacation etc.

[–]HodgekinWhitePill 4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Your so clueless. New toys and summer vacations are luxuries. Parents who don't spend quality time with their kids opt to spoil their kids.

[–]ElectricBugs -1 points0 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

As a woman who did that it was the worse decision of my life. Do not recommend

[–]HodgekinWhitePill 6 points7 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

You picked a bad man.

[–]ElectricBugs 0 points1 point  (16 children) | Copy Link

Yes. But regardless of the man it meant I gave up all career prospects I had and I haven't been employed since.

[–]HodgekinWhitePill 1 point2 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

I didn't want to put a disclaimer on the advice. It should be obvious if you choose to marry early and have kids, you should get a high quality man to do so.

It's unfortunate that you didn't have the wisdom to pick a good partner. In the past, a woman would let her father vet the partner, because other men can read men and see through the game.

Same way other women can see though women games.

The advice is in contrast to the ever growing cohort of woman who aim for their career first and end up dying alone and miserable.

[–]EviessVeralan 2 points3 points  (36 children) | Copy Link

It depends on who im talking to. For Red Pill guys my most controversial opinion is that its not the fault of women as an entire sex if you insist on dating on the hardest mode possible (dating apps are overwhelmingly male dominated).

For most other people, my most controversial opinion is that hookup culture is degrading not empowering.

[–]Marzipan-Happy 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Im with you on hookup culture. I think it is inherently toxic.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Tell us how to date then

[–]TheRedPillRipperRedPill 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Tell us how to date

  1. Focus on yourself. Physique. Health. Finances. Fulfilment.

  2. Increase your social circle. Both online, and actively. Hobbies and sports are great catalysts.

  3. Profit.

It’s hard, but simple.

Godspeed and good luck!

[–]EviessVeralan 3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Either use apps that have a better male/female ratio or try to meet someone in person.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

What apps and how do we meet in person, that’s the problem at least these online gurus give in depth explanation and address each problem . That’s why people turn to them

[–]EviessVeralan 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It looks like apps that are geared towards finding a serious relationship tend to have a better male/female ratio.

As for meeting IRL it depends on the guys hobbies. My husband and i had interest in politics and thats how we met.

[–]Available-Ad-9338 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

How you do meet people in person? The same way people dated in the 90s and early 2000s before dating apps became mainstream. Don't you have a social circle?

[–]IHateNormis 1 point2 points  (26 children) | Copy Link

Dating apps would still be Chad only if it was dominated by females

[–]EviessVeralan 1 point2 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

[–]IHateNormis 1 point2 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

Pareto principle, females hate most men. Females would also rather share or take turns with Chad than go for a non Chad. Females frequently complain about men cheating despite a very large proportion of men who struggle to get any romantic interaction.

Also if a non Chad male is in a female dominated environment there is no guarantee he will get laid. The reverse is definitely not true

[–]no_bling_just_dingWhitePill (self aware MSTOW) 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

tbh women prefer men that cheat on them thats the only way to explain how those guys arent as sexless as men who have nobody to cheat on

[–]EviessVeralan 1 point2 points  (22 children) | Copy Link

Citing an ideological belief isnt an argument. Have anything to back up anything you just said?

[–]Pilling_it 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't consider myself RP because... Well, one look at the loudest community, any sane man don't want to be associated with that.

Hard agree on that dating apps, but it's more so that not only there's a given subset of women on there that stay on it, but also because it's only good to get opportunities, you are meant to meet asap and escalate, not to use it as a substitute for actual social skills, which a lot of people do. Also, using a third party that have a financial incentive to keep you frustrated... Come on.

As for hookup culture, i think it's more that people buy it's supposed to make you feel a given way, but if it make you feel emotionally like shit, it's probably not something you should do.

Like for me, fwb work because of the emotional connection you can have but ons are empty as hit. But there are people that can Fuck on ons and feel good about it, and that's fine. There's also people that don't like fwb because the emotional connect is too shallow (or any reason really), and that's also fine.

[–]Glad-Discount-4761 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I have lots of controversial opinions that people would think I am pyscho. One of them is sex is meant for man only.Yeah it is stupid but that's what I believe.

Personally,more man than woman is fine to me as I don't want to deal with them lol.Their nature is more cunning or evil than man's

[–]mandoa_sky 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

well the last time there WAS a 4:3 male:female ratio was just after WW2...

you do the math...

[–]RealNiceLady 3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

OP, the ratio of men to women isn't a problem as long as you don't do polygamy. Monogamy keeps male sexual competition under control.

My most controversial opinion is that I am anti-gay and anti-poly.

[–]Swapsta 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

anti gay as in marriage?

[–]RealNiceLady 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Yes

[–]Swapsta 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I see marriage as pointless anyways but why gay people specifically and not everyone.

[–]RealNiceLady 4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Gay people should not be allowed to marry because they can't produce children naturally, and gay marriage leads to Christians being forced to render their services to a wedding that they disagree with, thus limiting religious freedom. Children need to be raised by a parent of both genders, and they can only get that with straight marriage.

[–]Lovers691BlackPill 7 points8 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

Violent behaviour and "Thugmaxxing" will get you more women and more attractive ones than being a clean cut 9-5 dude

[–]Glad-Discount-4761 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, amount of time women denying it even their favourite romance novel/movies include male lead like that.

But that works if you are at least good looking to women.

[–]h1shman 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I agree if the goal is maximizing quantity. There are more ghetto hoes and thots than there are worth marrying.

I’d say the attractiveness is even split though

[–]Lovers691BlackPill 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah basically I mean gang members always have women. Also nice bod man, mirin’

[–]h1shman 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Appreciate it brother. We’re all gana make it

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Specify in black community

[–]Lovers691BlackPill 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It works in all communities

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nah the white guys I see slay don’t act like thugs my guy

[–]lizzy1289 -4 points-3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Get off your computer and go touch some grass.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Don’t give stupid replies if you have no rebuttal

[–]Lovers691BlackPill 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You didn’t refute my statement

Edit: I also don’t advice being a thug type of dude cause it can lead to death or serious injury and it is also against my morality

[–]KirthWGersen 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Maybe in another time or another place.

Tastes and needs change.

[–]Lovers691BlackPill 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It does work: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233368360_Sexual_access_to_females_as_a_motivation_for_joining_gangs_An_evolutionary_approach

Quite old but I doubt the culture has changed much between 1995 and now that thugs would get less women.

[–]KirthWGersen 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

At my age, in the place where I live, the ratio is about 6 women to every 4 men.

I must admit, it is wonderful.

[–]Available-Ad-9338 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

How old are you?

[–]Glad-Discount-4761 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Can you explain what is good about it?I have no idea except lots of woman lol.

[–]KirthWGersen 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In places where there are fewer men, women tend to be less likely to push for commitment as the price for sex. When there are too many men, women have more power In the sexual market place.

[–]mymanhenry84052255 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Men who have trouble with women should do everything in their power to improve their looks including plastic surgery if necessary. I would say the same for women, but this would only apply to the absolute bottom of the barrel.

[–]riverden 1 point2 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

My controversial opinion is give up on dating and focus on becoming moral saints and adopt kids and teach them good ethics and morals. Don't let them use internet at young age and teach them a little bit of everything. Give them books and watch documentaries together. Raise them to be skeptical of the world and society. Teach them critical thinking skills and emotional regulation skills. Let the new and better generation have romance. This we will have a better society for future. I understand this is idealistic but what ever.

[–]no_bling_just_dingWhitePill (self aware MSTOW) 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

what kids are you going to teach if you are a "saint" who's also an evolutionary dead end?

[–]riverden 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The ones I adopt

[–]HodgekinWhitePill 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I think adoption agency will only consider you as a potential guardian if you're married with kids or unable to have kids.

Being single is a red flag for any adoption agency.

[–]riverden 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Wait really I thought anyone was able to adopt regardless of their relationship status

[–]HodgekinWhitePill 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

They have to protect against potential predators or pedophiles.

[–]riverden 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

That make sense I didn't know that honestly

[–]PaliantBlackPill 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Nature always birthed more baby boys than baby girls. It is not actually a 50/50 chance of having a boy or girl, like commonly believed.

When times are good, the female body suppresses the processes that creates baby girls. (So even more boys) When famines hit, the # of baby girls born increases dramatically.

There’s multiple competing theories why but there are environmental factors that kill more boys earlier than women and tended to balance the dating pool in the past.

  1. Male infants are more likely to succumb to diseases. Male fetuses are less likely to make it through the pregnancy (low child mortality fixes this)
  2. Males used to die in dangerous jobs or hunting large / dangerous game
  3. Men constantly fighting in warfare, death by infections or disease in general were also more common

In the past, these factors and an excess of male births would lead to a balanced dating pool around the late teens, to early twenties age range. Many baby boomer men also were some of the first to establish “no fault divorce”, divorce their older wives, and dipped into Gen Xs dating pool. (Double dipping effect, creates a domino where all younger men are forced to dip younger for a partner, current youngest gen of men get SCREWED in this model)

This also leads to a phenomenon where the single women who are in the dating pool get overwhelmed (because there’s way more single men than women and any population with excess men will experience this, even a monogamous one) and thus leave the dating pool due to oversaturation, further snowballing the problem negatively.

I guess you could say my most controversial take is similar to yours. Which is to say we should have sex selective abortion / birth control in favor of excess females of the general population for the overall stability of society. As we can see a 1:1 ratio would still not be ideal as women usually aren’t quite as interested in dating (when by choice) compared to men.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HM0mj3vwDm4

[–]Antisocial_NihilistRedPill[S] 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

This is another facet of the idea I'm talking about.

Back when we were hunter-gatherers, men dropped like flies. They were expected to expose themselves to the elements, hunt dangerous animals for food, and go to war with rival tribes over resources. These processes in and of themselves naturally ensured there were pretty much always more women than men around.

But now that these pressures have largely been eliminated, there are now more men than women in the world.

[–]PaliantBlackPill 4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Yes, I love this post. Demographics never get discussed in pill spheres.

Based on studying demographics trends I believe can actually explain many political and social movements.

For example, the reason gender expectations of women going into the workforce was NOT due to WW2. Sure women worked during WW2, but returned home when the men came back from war.

See, women didn’t have options to make income but something unprecedented happened during the baby boomers era. There were so many wars, in the US, you actually had an excess of young women. (This is why boomer men say it was easy to find a wife and get married)

So this creates a new issue. If you have extra single women, they literally cannot find a man to rely on his income so you have to accommodate them into the economy. This is what happened during the baby boomer era and why there was such a push to bring women into the workforce, simply demographic trends disguised as feminism.

I actually plan to make an entire post soon about this phenomenon of “male excess” or “imbalanced gender ratios” as it’s called and how it affects everyone in the dating market.

[–]HodgekinWhitePill 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I would like to expand on your thesis in an intellectual discussion.

Your theory on demographics (which I agree with), also coincided with economical events. The removal of the gold standard to fiat currency has created a situation of borrowing from the future. Policies like old age pension, national debt, interest rates and etc are all forms of wealth distribution from the "future" to the "present".

What happens when we do this, we inflate the abundance of wealth we have currently, making it seem like we live in a time of excess resources. This ties in with women having less children, because they feel more secure in the moment and is not worried that her offspring will die.

If we had reasonable policies that didn't borrow resources from the future, we would have a more moderate lifestyle without any pending collapse in the future. But the way we have it now, it's cycles of BOOM followed by CRASH model.

[–]PaliantBlackPill 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

True. US baby boomers basically got the best economic conditions EVER in human history and sold out future generations to maximize their short term gain.

Mismanagement of resources for multiple generations (that will have to be correct by an innocent generation) will have consequences. Unfounded govt liabilities, low birth rates, environmental destruction.

[–]RStonePTRedPill 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Any opinion I have gained through experience tends to piss off Redditors

[–]bludkrazeRED AF 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not all of us tho.

[–]BoogersAndSugar 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Most controversial opinion? We need to make plastic surgery affordable, to combat the growing number of guys who struggle in the dating game to the point of dropping out of it entirely. The greatest danger these guys pose isn't the fringe element that resorts to violence, but the economic consequences of an entire generation of guys simply "checking out" -- no kids of their own to support and spend money on, no more "dating game spending" (purchases guys make in hopes of attracting a mate, like bigger houses, nicer cars, etc), and no more ambitions beyond the minimum required for a roof over their heads + personal entertainment. These guys only need to make up about 20% of the male population to wreck the economy and cause all sorts of other problems.

[–]Available-Ad-9338 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Plastic surgery is affordable overseas.

[–]DisasterPeace7 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

My most controversial opinion is that men and women are different and are attracted to / want different things at different levels

[–]mcove97NeutralPill 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Controversial opinion but dating just to be able to breed and pass on your "lEgAcY" and "mUh GeNeS" is primitive and unintelligent. You're not gonna care about your legacy when you're dead anyway.

[–]islandmiler 2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Only controversial amongst incels and low value males in denial: The world is largely deterministic, those who are unfit to reproduce are incels, deservingly so, as demonstrated by empirical evidence (including historical accounts for human history), natural selection is working just as intended, and all is right with the world.

[–]Antisocial_NihilistRedPill[S] 7 points8 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Do you believe the same about women? You do realize that a large part of why incels exist, is because short and unattractive women can easily reproduce... right?

A 5'0 woman can easily hook up with a 6'2 man who has a fetish for short women. And she has a 50% chance of passing on her short genes to her children. If she passes them to a daughter, she will have no trouble reproducing later in life just like her mom.

But if she passes her genes on to a son, he will be a 5'1 ugly manlet that posts on incel forums.

If you're going to support the natural selection narrative about incels (eugenics basically), then at least apply it equally.

[–]h1shman -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

On a primal level men don’t care who they give their genes to. The goal is as many women as possible.

That short woman on the otherhand on a primal level wants the tall mate to produce strong children that will survive and she had to pick. Men don’t

Most men aren’t thinking about this on a primal level though. Our brains have outpaced evolution so we are left with a primal brain and our highly advanced frontal cortex so it’s a cluster fuck of lizard brain vs new brain.

[–]you-arent-reading-it 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Fair point

[–]islandmiler 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Speaking as an ecology and evolutionary biology fag, your understanding of the expression of genetic traits and natural selection itself is much too simplistic. Males and females of our species face different selection pressures, and evolution has endowed males and females with different instinctual responses for sexual selection.

What you're getting at, the notion of a "looksmatch", is giga cope because mating is not and has never been equal for the sexes. In the human species, as we observe today from empirical data and historical data, a small number of males father offspring (those fit to reproduce), while almost all females reproduce. Because the expression of genetic traits is complex and not simply explained, there is some chance the offspring may be fit or unfit (depending on selection pressures due to sex, environment, etc.) Not every offspring makes it, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Eugenics is a cope as well, because the genetic expression of traits is not well understood and selection in that sense is arbitrary (by government as opposed to natural and instinctual by individuals). If you need a pop culture reference to illustrate this, think of the Brazilian TV show 3% where society is horrible and overpopulated, but encouraged by government to continue to reproduce and those deemed fit (unnaturally, so an imperfect analogy) are placed at the top of the social pyramid.

The difference between what I'm saying and those furiously coping is that I'm only interested in what the world is, not what some people think it ought to be. Take the blackpill and be at peace with the world

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

See the crux of it isn’t they want “better” offspring, iq drop goes brrrr btw .It’s that they hate ugly non naturals simple as

[–]IHateNormis 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If you are all for “natural selection” you should support legalising rape too because that is also “natural”

[–]h1shman 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Redpill views will get you lots of low quality women, whom make up the majority of women, and filter out any woman worth your time.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

b-b-b-but AWALT all women are low quality!! /s

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Tell us how to get non low quality women then

[–]skipsfaster 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Red pill works for basically every 6+ neurotypical woman. I’m sure there are exceptions out there - hopefully one day I will meet an autistic unicorn

[–]Glad-Discount-4761 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

That's not controversial

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Tell us how to get non low quality women then

[–]DivineDaedraChadwife 2 points3 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

The world would be a better place if traditional gender roles were actively dismantled—everyone should be encouraged to make the first move, plan dates, put in work, etc.

[–]DivineDaedraChadwife 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Less controversial, I think rejection should stop being considered a personal failing or something to be laughed at.

[–]bludkrazeRED AF 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The world would be a better place if traditional gender roles were actively dismantled

Firmly disagree. The world only works because of the little bit of traditionalism we have left.

[–]DivineDaedraChadwife 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well I disagree with your disagreement

[–]IHateNormis 2 points3 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Gender roles effectively have been dismantled in the west and it is terrible

[–]DivineDaedraChadwife 1 point2 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

They haven’t, though—they’ve been altered but not dismantled.

Women are still assumed to be the pursued rather than the pursuer, so they aren’t often encouraged to take the initiative in regards to asking the man out, planning dates, etc.

Men are expected to pursue, pay for dates, initiate everything, etc.

Men don’t need to be the providers anymore but the expectation is still that they will be even if they’re more suited for household maintenance. When women are legitimately suited for things like that, no one who isn’t a rabid feminist isn’t okay with the woman choosing to pursue a life as a housewife. The same understanding isn’t extended to men with the same frequency.

More should be expected and encouraged of women. Men should be shown understanding and given the same options as women.

I’m not saying that level of change would be easy to achieve or that I have a plan to achieve it. I just think it’d be better if we were closer to actual equality instead of “women can choose what they want, men better provide though”

[–]IHateNormis 2 points3 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Men are more accepting and are willing to accept females with different gender roles. The reverse is not true. Very few females would want a house husband or think that is acceptable unless he is like an Uber gigachad or something.

Gender roles have changed for females but it will not change for males ever, females would never accept that

[–]DivineDaedraChadwife 1 point2 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Yeah that’s the plan for myself and my husband. I know enough women who would love a man willing to take on a more traditionally feminine role in their relationship to know it’s not as rare as most people would expect. That being said, despite me expressing that I am getting exactly what I want out of the relationship I’m in people have told me I can do better—not realizing that I’m not being humble or cute when I say I don’t want “better”

Women not accepting men in certain roles means that gender roles have not been dismantled. People, women included, being more accepting of (and interested in) men taking on different roles is what I think should happen.

[–]Drive-By-CuckersWhitePill 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Why do you think we enforce ratio at frat parties?

When you put a hundred dudes in a house and get them drunk around fifty women they all start fighting each other, when the numbers are reversed, everyone is happier

[–]ManWazoA poly Chad 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I think sexual orientation is chosen and that more men choosing to have sex with men would solve all dating issue.

[–]no_bling_just_dingWhitePill (self aware MSTOW) 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

can gay men choose to be straight

[–]ManWazoA poly Chad 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes and many did when homosexuality was a mental illness

[–]Necessary-Worry1923 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Okay, Nihilist, your dream actually came true once in the 1950s inside the USSR. Most of the people killed by the Nazis from 1941 to 1945 were males. Stalin also did his own killing and that reduced the male population even more. The female population of both post war USSR and Germany was heavily skewed to females who could not find husbands.

https://www.populationpyramid.net/russian-federation/1950/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1261433/post-wwii-gender-ratios-in-select-countries/

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/14/why-the-former-ussr-has-far-fewer-men-than-women/

Any kind of sexual scarcity will lead to conflict and that is never a good thing. Russia is in populational collapse. Not something to brag about.

Think of the Oneida Cult community where people were prevented from forming couples but free sex was encouraged. Basically this was a pure hookup society where dyad exclusivity was banned. However only a small minority of the men were allowed to impregnate the women, meaning gene pool diversity was severely restricted.

Limiting diversity is a disaster waiting to happen.

[–]Antisocial_NihilistRedPill[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

None of the sources you linked mentioned any serious adverse effects of this 4:3 gender ratio. Only that certain aspects of thier nation's productivity were hindered.

Look at it this way. The current system we have of 1:1 women to men is not working. Women are hypergamous by nature, and as such, it means given a relatively equal ratio of men to women there will always be a large underclass of men who are permanently single. Look how much problems that is causing.

Do you honestly think these "Incels" just popped up in some kind of vacuum?

[–]Necessary-Worry1923 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think your model works at the bottom class of females but will fail at the upper calibers of women.

What do I mean? Low value females, ie those who are poor, uneducated, saddled with bastard babies and ugly and least desirable of all the women will likely behave the way you intend them to behave under your 4:3 populational disparity experiment. 1. They will settle for a low quality male ( Uber driver, no cash, lives with mom, no college, low status) 2. They will likely accept a polygynist mating arrangement, ie. Man sharing with another low status female. 3. Accept impregnation without an offer of marriage. 4. Accept a de facto single mom or grandma+mom living arrangement ( American Black Women have 66% single mom children today).

However the top caliber females, ie. Young attractive and highly educated with high incomes are not going to lower their standards just because you reduced the supply of HVM. They will never settle for that "Jason Alexander" short 5'1" Uber driver living in mom's basement. They would rather stay single or they will GEO-Maxx to another country and pick an HVM there. They will not surrender their hypergamy just because you created an artificial scarcity.

Proof?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/meet-catch-and-keep/201909/are-there-not-enough-men-worth-marrying%3famp

Where Are the Marriageable Men?

So how bad is it? According to the study, the kind of men that single women likely would marry, if they married—i.e., the "synthetic spouses"—were not only 26 percent more likely to hold a job, and more highly educated, but they also had nearly a 55 percent higher income than what the available men in the U.S. actually make. In other words, from an economic standpoint, the dating pool lacks the kind of men that women might be particularly interested in attaching to, for the long-haul.

[–]Admirable_Bee_8714 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

A woman is an entirely optional accessory for a man.

[–]Anti_Thing 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I have lots of controversial opinions on sex/relationships, though perhaps the most controversial is that married couples owe each other sex.

[–]allahrubarakh 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Women going back to being housewives should be glorified and lionized especially in the media and government. Feminist should be parodied and ridiculed openly to give them a sense of shame.

[–]Marzipan-Happy 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I was a housewife, I got my first degrees while my kid were babies, and now I am (in graduate school, doing for my DPH) the primary breadwinner. It became necessary for me to work, and then I became successful. Sometimes roles have to be altered. I am not a feminist by any means, just to clarify. I just got lucky, found my calling, and was very happy with my choices.

[–]bludkrazeRED AF -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Feminist should be parodied and ridiculed openly

Mirrors can easily solve this.

[–]allahrubarakh 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Mirrors can’t work on the narcissistic.

[–]DivineDaedraChadwife 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Tell that to Narcissus.

[–]bludkrazeRED AF 0 points1 point  (33 children) | Copy Link

Women are inferior to men in almost everything so their intellect or any non-tangible features dont matter at all. (for dating)

[–]mcove97NeutralPill 1 point2 points  (23 children) | Copy Link

The fact that I'm childfree definitely does matter for dating.

[–]bludkrazeRED AF 0 points1 point  (22 children) | Copy Link

Well yeah it does. But that's a compatibility issue and not related to intellect or career path.

[–]mcove97NeutralPill -1 points0 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

Oh it's definitely related to intellect and career path. If i wasn't an intellectual woman, but a primitive unintellectual woman I would be having children and not be working on my career.

[–]bludkrazeRED AF 1 point2 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

I am woke, childfree and therefore smarter than trad women. Do you realize how narcissistic that sounds?

[–]HodgekinWhitePill 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

Women are inferior also in their intellect. There's a reason why men make most of the inventions, are the top chess players, and so forth.

[–]bludkrazeRED AF 1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

i wouldnt say inferior but the distribution is different.

[–]HodgekinWhitePill -1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

That's the lie.

The study on intelligence were done on teenagers. Girls go through puberty sooner than boys, so their brains were more developed. They studied that cohort of girls vs boys and found girls were more intelligent than boys.

Then they took that data and said, women are more intelligent than men.

No one dare do a study of the intelligence of men after the age of 25, when their brains are fully developed. Any study done in that age range doesn't take IQ, but looks at grades and course major in determining intelligence.

The distribution argument is in my opinion, a politically correct argument. Saying men distribution is more flat, hence you have more smart men and more stupid men. And then say women distribution is more clustered to the center.

I believe the distribution is shifted for men towards the higher intelligent. Men are just smarter overall.

[–]bludkrazeRED AF 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

I cant verify this but what i do know is that men are the overwhelming majority of high intellect humans.

[–]you-arent-reading-it 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

My most controversial opinion is that average men should have more leadership than women in a relationship.

Others are:

That a consensual agreement on what she can and can't wear is not toxic.

That a consensual agreement on the open access to her phone is not toxic.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

People are reading the OkCupid study wrong. The study was right, but the interpretation is off the mark.

Women do date men below the top 20%. Problem is that those relationships are much more likely to degrade to infidelity, divorce or dead bedrooms.

Women do settle for men who aren't the top men, but they're settling, they are not satisfied, and it will eventually show.

[–]TriggurWarning 0 points1 point  (17 children) | Copy Link

High levels of violent crime in inner cities are influenced by the fact that this behavior increases their sexual attractiveness to young women. The violence gives them status and power, which attracts young fertile females.

In other words, violent thugs get more young pussy and have more babies before they get murdered or sent to prison for sentences of life plus 5,000 years with no parole. And the cycle begins again.

[–]lizzy1289 1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Yep, convicted felons who can't even get a job flipping burgers and are likely to be homeless and abusive losers sure do turn me on!

Do you guys honestly think like this way?

All I want from a man is one who is honest, loyal, hardworking, and takes care of his appearance and hygiene. That's all. That's what I'm offering a man, so that's what I expect back in return. It's not exactly rocket science.

Some of y'all seem straight up delusional.

[–]TriggurWarning 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Your individual criteria of attraction is not relevant to this discussion. If women in poor inner city neighborhoods were behaving properly in their selection criteria then we wouldn't have a 70% out of wedlock birthrate.

[–]Drive-By-CuckersWhitePill 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah unfortunately there’s no money in the schools to educate people on drug use and safe sex because city public schools are massively underfunded

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Can you explain this if they're delusional? Also can you explain Donald Trump?

[–]lizzy1289 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

An outlier case.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Then how come these guys in gangs are so damned successful with women?

[–]IHateNormis 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, prisons are filled with incels

[–]ElectricBugs 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Fucking hell. So women are to blame for men being violent what a fucking stupid take.

[–]IHateNormis 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They are to blame for fucking violent men and validating his violence. Plenty of peaceful men who are alone

[–]TriggurWarning 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm sorry if inconvenient facts disturb you.

[–]ElectricBugs -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Not facts man.

[–]TriggurWarning 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

You're welcome to dispute it, but it seems all you have as an argument to defend yourself is throwing around insults.

[–]HodgekinWhitePill 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Is that an endorsement of his claim about gender ratio?

[–]TriggurWarning 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Just meant as an observation for now, but I would note that high numbers of young black men in prison are achieving exactly what he claims to desire in the overall population (just highly localized to some inner city populations). And I feel this policy of putting them in jail for many years is probably necessary until the epidemic of single motherhood is brought under control.

[–]catniagara -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If you have an advantage in one area it will be taken away from you in another. Ugly women usually win out over attractive women, not because we’re “picky” but because they are more visible after using catty measures to push us out of the workplace/public eye.

The same thing happens to less attractive/confident men who other men try to trample because they want to keep all the hot girls to themselves… so you can spend years on some loser’s back burner while he is deliberately keeping you away from his single, and wonderful friends.

Attractive women are deliberately kept out of the workplace and dating marketplace because other women see us as competition and men in relationships see us as dangerous. It starts in high school when we’re more likely to get dress coded for nothing when the other girls can show up at school naked.

Men would have a lot more luck if they were more realistic and didn’t do things that look (to me) like they actually want to be alone forever. Like “falling in love” with the most boring looking stripper at the club, “saving” party girls with zero morals and trying to turn them into housewives, or becoming obsessed with women who are clearly not interested, and half the time are married.

Men would have a lot more luck if they would just rip off the band aid and tell you they like you instead of trying and failing to impress you by doing weird man things. They would also have more luck if they stopped telling you they’re interested in someone else to see if you’re jealous. By the time you know she’s into you, you’ve lost her by making her play second fiddle, doofus.

More concerning than the pure numbers of men to women is the significantly elevated risk of developmental delays in male children. If we were to take draconian measures, using the sperm of elite men to inseminate women could be…an interesting sci fi novel and a viable solution to breeding out male-coded imperfection.

A lot of ugly dudes have hot sisters, so it’s definitely coded to the male genome. We could solve this problem in two generations by making sperm banks more easily accessible to a wider variety of women.

Oh, does that sound crazy? Heh. Go figure.

[–]HodgekinWhitePill 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Would it be a fair statement to say, the pros would be less violence overall, but the con would be, maybe less technological advancements(assuming it's a good thing).

[–]InfamousBake1859 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No. Only the best should survive survive

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2022. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter