~ archived since 2018 ~

Why most men are not attractive to women

iliyb
February 13, 2023
6 upvotes
/r/AllPillDebate

Is because for most of human history women didn't really choose their mates but instead were chosen for by their families and when they did choose a partner they chose him for his ability to provide and not for his looks.

This naturally lead to most men being unattractive. Since beta bucksing and young marriage is far less common now we're seeing a huge spike in adult males who are virgins as women aren't seeing the benefits of sleeping with said men.

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 This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/AllPillDebate.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:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Why most men are not attractive to women
Author iliyb
Upvotes 6
Comments 15
Date February 13, 2023 4:42 PM UTC (1 month ago)
Subreddit /r/AllPillDebate
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/AllPillDebate/why-most-men-are-not-attractive-to-women.1152857
https://theredarchive.com/post/1152857
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/AllPillDebate/comments/111dms9/why_most_men_are_not_attractive_to_women/
Red Pill terms in post
beta
Top posts by iliyb

"men age like fine wine women hit the wall at 24"

19 upvotes
February 22, 2023
/r/AllPillDebate

For the adult virgins

14 upvotes
February 26, 2023
/r/AllPillDebate

is this a looksmatch couple? or does she cringe everytime he initiates anything physical?

10 upvotes
March 13, 2023
/r/AllPillDebate

average passport bro

10 upvotes
March 24, 2023
/r/AllPillDebate

Do redpillers really believe sexual strategy is amoral?

6 upvotes
February 17, 2023
/r/AllPillDebate

Chad won't actually commit to an average woman even if she's in her prime

5 upvotes
February 21, 2023
/r/AllPillDebate

White incels don't actually exist. Only volcels

4 upvotes
March 9, 2023
/r/AllPillDebate

is the beta bucks worth the squeeze anymore for women?

1 upvotes
February 15, 2023
/r/AllPillDebate
Comments

[–]NotARussianBot1984 11 points12 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

If you had hundred's of hot girls begging to have sex with you, you would have higher standards too.

Social media has made it so Chad doesn't even need to go to the bar to find girls, they find him now.

[–]iliyb1 points [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Women don't really have hundreds of hot guys begging for sex. Those men have options and aren't begging any woman for it. Its mostly unattractive men doing the begging.

[–]NotARussianBot1984 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Fine, change it to shooting their shot.

Semantics

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

Women don't really have hundreds of hot guys begging for sex.

Oh, please, just cut this crap. I did several experiments (pretended a female) and got so much attention that I never got to this day. I could literally ask for a money for nothing.

[–]herefortheparty01PurplePill 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

No. It’s about access. Women have access to better men outside of their living area. Before they didn’t. So why would they settle for the boy next door when there is a millionaire 20 miles away?

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

Good point. Global SMV.

[–]TelephonicRugPeddler -1 points0 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Evolutionary psychology is BS. People look at recorded history and think 10,000 years is enough to change innate human nature and ultimately hundreds of millions of years of actual inherited evolutionary traits.

Women have higher standards for men because men are more likely to pursue due to a higher drive to reproduce with as many women as possible (actual evolutionary trait). Therefore they are bombarded with propositions and their higher standards are a method of filtering said potential mates.

Most men are unattractive because the distribution of traits that make people physically attractive are skewed right. This has nothing to do with evolution. Being physically attractive is not and never has been an evolutionary advantage. Otherwise, we’d all have these traits.

[–]hutavan -1 points0 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Well said, I agree with most of your post except this:

Being physically attractive is not and never has been an evolutionary advantage.

Wdym? Of course it's an evolutionary advantage. Like you said: women have higher standards. They will reject majority of men because they find them unattractive. The few men they do find attractive will produce more offspring.

The only reason this is not the case in our modern era is because of artificial human involvement (like birth prevention and the concept of monogamy), but these artificial inventions didn't exist for the majority of our existence and that's still how it would work if we didn't consciously alter this naturally evolved mechanism.

Maybe you meant it's not a survival advantage? Because in that case I would agree, but it is an evolutionary advantage since having that trait means producing more offspring.

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

Because evolution is a process that takes hundreds of thousands to millions of years. At no point during the evolution of humans did having a positive cantal tilt or a square jawline increase the chances that you will breed with more women.

Humans were concerned about survival for the entirety of our evolutionary formative years. Finding food and not dying from a scrape they got while hunting. Most men did not reproduce because most men died early. Not because Oong have a more defined brow ridge.

Humans existed in small groups with a limited pool of potential mates. Women’s choices were “I feel the need to produce and my pack only has 13 men and 6 of them are my brothers so I will mate with the others that are of mating age” not “well Ooga has a better looking face and he’s 5’8 😜”

Since these traits do not and did not allow us to fill an evolutionary niche better than other species, they are by definition not an evolutionary advantage. If they were, we’d all have these traits. Things like being bipedal or having sweat glands are an evolutionary advtantage because it gave us the ability to fulfill a certain niche (being able to throw objects and run for long distances).

Just the fact that two attractive people have an extremely higher probability of giving birth to an ugly but otherwise healthy kid as opposed to a kid with Down syndrome or 7 toes or some other strange mutation should tell you this. Facial attractiveness has nothing to do with survivability and is not an evolutionary advantage.

Simply “having more sex than other humans” is not an evolutionary advantage. Next you’d have to argue that being a celebrity or a king is an “evolutionary advantage” because they have more sex than the average normie. It has nothing to do with evolution. Attractiveness is a social construct and is defined by a given population, not evolution.

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

Humans were concerned about survival for the entirety of our evolutionary formative years. Finding food and not dying from a scrape they got while hunting.

Same case with pheasants and deer. And yet the biggest/strongest/prettiest males are still selected for by females.

Most men did not reproduce because most men died early.

No. Prehistoric Chad could die before he turns 20 and still reproduce with multiple women. A prehistoric manlet could live til 70 and not reproduce at all or maybe with 1 woman. As far as evolution is concerned, Chad won here even though he died early. Evolution favors reproduction the most, not survival. Survival without reproducing is evolutionary failure.

Humans existed in small groups with a limited pool of potential mates. Women’s choices were “I feel the need to produce and my pack only has 13 men and 6 of them are my brothers so I will mate with the others that are of mating age”

Pack lol? You mean tribe? These prehistoric communities intermixed with other communities. Not only did they mix with other homo sapiens communities, they also mixed with other archaic subspecies of humans like neanderthals. They had options outside of their "pack", your scenario is just made up and wrong.

Simply “having more sex than other humans” is not an evolutionary advantage.

Yes it is. Like I said, reproduction is the end goal, not survival. Survival is only necessary to achieve reproduction, but it's worthless in and of itself.

[–]TelephonicRugPeddler -1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

so are deer

Humans aren’t deer. Humans were never selected because of their facial attractiveness. You still haven’t provided any remotely convincing argument. “Deer do it bro” ok, lol.

There was no “Chad” in pre-historic times. Pre historic communities are largely believed to have been egalitarian and monogamous. If that weren’t the case then these features would be more widely distributed to the population. I don’t understand how hard it is for your peabrain to understand this.

Cool history lesson on “sometimes human packs interacted with other human packs”, no shit, doesn’t advance your point any further and my point of limited options for women still stands.

Cool, I look forward to hearing you defend how being a well-known actor or monarch or trust fund baby is an evolutionary advantage, since social constructs that get some men more sex than others can apparently be “evolutionary” (lol).

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

The example with deer is to tear apart your faulty logic, not to argue that humans and deer are the same ffs. By faulty logic I mean your claim that because humans were most concerned about food, it means they didn't select for attractive physical traits. Most animals are most concerned with food and survival and yet they are still observed to select for attractive traits in males, traits which don't always aid in survival.

Cool history lesson on “sometimes human packs interacted with other human packs”, no shit, doesn’t advance your point any further and my point of limited options for women still stands.

They mated with those other "packs". They didn't only mate within a small group of 20 or so people like you said. I stated something that directly debunks your claim and you're saying this doesn't prove any point? Are you malfunctioning or something?

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

So you’ve abandoned your original point “bro Ooga totally chose Unga because he had positive cantal tilt and a compact mid face” to instead (stupidly) nitpick specific arguments of mine.

Cool, deer aren’t humans and humans didn’t select for attractiveness nor is being facially attractive an evolutionary advantage. Try to remember your original point.

So you’ve moved onto “yeah there wasn’t 13 men bro there was actually 50 men across 2 packs and 30 women as well” because you can’t defend your OG (dumb) point.

Next you’re gonna go after my grammar, lol

Stick to the point, amuse me and tell me how being an actor or a TikTok/YouTube entertainer is an evolutionary advantage.

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

I'm addressing your arguments because they are your basis for "muh humans didn't select for attractive traits".

You had the broken logic of "food was priority therefore we didn't select for attractive traits" so naturally that's what I addressed. You had your made up story about how prehistoric females chose mates so that's what I addressed. You had your claim about human community sizes and limited mating options, so that's what I addressed. Why are you triggered that I'm addressing your shitty arguments? Maybe don't make more shitty arguments, so I won't address more of them.

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

And through all of that, you haven’t presented even a single point that advances yours.

Are you arguing that because you don’t agree with my points (which all make sense) that means you’re right by default? Not a single advancement of your braindead argument because you’re wrong and too dumb to see it.

A) survival was the priority and women did not have the option of picking the most handsome guy because humans are not animals like deer. Deer societies are different from what anthropologists believe prehistoric human societies were like I.e. deer are led by a single patriarch much like gorillas. Human packs were never led by a single patriarch, it was an integrated group of men and women and largely believed to be egalitarian with MONOGAMOUS relationships. Humans evolved to cooperate because cooperation is an actual evolutionary trait that allowed our species to thrive. Deer do not need cooperation to fulfill their evolutionary niche. There’s one stupid point of yours down.

B) women had SCARCITY and did not have free reign to mate with thousands of men like the modern era so their needs were basic: be alive and help keep the tribe alive. They did not have the luxury of being picky. Not to mention the absolute stupidity you’d have to have to believe that small groups of human men would tolerate a single guy keeping all of the women for himself when even in the modern era we have incels ready to kill out of sexual frustration. That is not good for cooperation which early human societies thrived on. Unless you want to argue that early human groups had one man and a bunch of woman following him around that he was responsible for protecting AND feeding. Yeah, right, all it took was 3-4 men to take him down through cooperation and then they’d share the women among themselves in an egalitarian way. See how that works and how your deer argument is idiotic? Humans and deer survive, and therefore reproduce, in different ways while our societies are structured differently, so your comparison is a complete joke, like you.

You are too dumb to understand my argument and too dumb to advance yours, that’s what I’m getting out of this.

“But deers bro” jfl

And I ask for the 3rd time: tell me how being a famous actor, a sperm donor or a trust fund baby is an evolutionary advantage. I’ll wait.

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

© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter