~ archived since 2018 ~

Charles Darwin was Morpheus

2014-05-20T18:52:45+00:00

Everyone knows about On The Origin of Species, which was about natural selection. His second book The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex is...

[deleted]

May 20, 2014

0 upvotes

/r/TheRedPill

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Charles Darwin was Morpheus
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	0
Comments	21
Date	May 20, 2014 6:52 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/261wmh/charles_darwin_was_morpheus/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/charles-darwin-was-morpheus.15632 https://theredarchive.com/post/15632

Comments

[–]harkrank 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

It's interesting how sexual selection is a mental instinct among humans, even though we as a species have such dimorphism (difference in body between male and female) that sexual selection shouldn't exist. What I mean is that any man can overpower any woman and rape her, so why does she choose?

I think our social nature puts a roadblock on rapist genes. The woman who were raped would be expelled from her group since the group wouldn't want to divert resources to her child. Therefore she and her baby would die and the rapist wouldn't spread his genes. But this means a woman's best strategy would be to keep quiet about any rape.

I think rape is a very complicated issue and we as men misunderstand it because we think about it from our perspective and male on male rape is a very straight forward issue. There is no grey zone. That's why rape in ancient cultures had nothing to do with women, but was a crime that could only be done to a man.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]harkrank 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]NikolaTeslaMGTOW 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

It doesn't. Rape is good only when you rape other tribes, not for ingroup. So in war rape is good because the good genes get spread around. But raping your friend's girlfriend is destructive because all societies need property rights and you didn't earn the pussy, aka you didn't provide value to the ingroup society.

Also men can kill other men with planning. We don't except in war. It is very easy for a 5' 4" man weighing 100lbs to poison a 6' 7" man weighing 300lbs. Poison can be switched for traps. But its a waste cuz then everyone would just poison each other and there would be no selection so those who did those antisocial behaviors would have a less successful society and their societys would die off. So society vs society. Sure people still do these behaviors and cuckold and stuff but its a lot more rare than it would be and has to be done in secret so they won't get punished, hence machiavellianism is beneficial.

This is why we have constraints on male behavior in law (its generic but its mostly affecting males, see prison) and females behavior constraint was mostly social, but now their antisocial behavior is becoming destructive and since dumb assholes vote for socialist policies they have to pay for other men's kids (this is why I can't see anyone being red pill being liberal because the state is basically alpha fucks beta bucks with a gun to the betas head).

Basically women get to pick winners and reward them with pussy. If the men are too weak so they die they are losers. I'm tired so hopefull this is coherent.

[–]harkrank 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NikolaTeslaMGTOW 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PIV_OR_GTFO 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]harkrank 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]PIV_OR_GTFO 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]harkrank 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]PIV_OR_GTFO 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Sexual selection is a term typically used to describe run-away arms races such as peacock feathers or the size of human brains. You're using it in a slightly different way, but I'll continue to use it in the way you've been.

Being attracted to the strongest male is sexual selection. What does the word "attraction" imply? Sexual desire

It's clear you didn't read or didn't understand one of my earlier points. You're asking about the rapist's offspring - this is too narrow a focus in terms of evolutionary pressures.

Let's say rape was more or less accepted, I could improve my fitness by a certain amount. Great! I forced a couple women to bear my children!

What about all of my female relatives though? What about my female offspring? Their fitness could be impaired with respect to the level of fitness they could have achieved had they been permitted to select a mate on their own volition. Thus, unless I'm top alpha dog, my genes (which are carried by myself and all of my female relatives) will benefit from making rape taboo.

This is why I called your dismissal of societal norms in evolution a betrayal of your ignorance. Many societal norms have an evolutionary basis, because certain groups benefit from them. I realize ignorance has a lot of negative connotations, but if you're just thinking about the rapist's offspring and think evolution is about exploiting others, then you really are ignorant on this topic to an extent. So am I, to an extent. It's just a word, not an insult.

[–]harkrank 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There's no point in talking about sexual selection if the mate that will be selected is the one that will take you as a partner wether you like it or not. Then it is more a coping mechanism to deal with reality.

You assume females are better selectors for fit genes than nature itself. That means they possess all knowledge that can exist, since they can chose better than nature herself which genes are goo. The difference with the peacocks in your example is that these birds do not rape and therefore sexual selection will matter.

Making rape taboo is already outside evolutionary territory, now you are talking about culture, not biology. If there was no evolutionary benefit of rape men would be the same size as women.

Evolution is what benefits you and your genes, just because we as enlightened humans disagree with some behaviors doesn't mean that they have not been good for the genes. If evolution benefitted more what is good for the species and not the individual there wouldn't be 50/50 male and female offspring, there would be 1 male born per year.

I don't care if you insult me in this irrelevant and anonymous discussion, it reflects back more on you.

[–]PIV_OR_GTFO 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You're still failing to even acknowledge my point that there's no reason to assume rape will benefit your genes. I gave a very plausible description of how widespread rape could negatively impact your own genes' fitness. But no, you're still focused on individual humans - you're failing to consider the genes you share with other people, who could be negatively impacted by rape.

Even just looking at an individual male (since you're apparently unable to think about genes as superceding individuals): you might be negatively impacted by widespread rape. Maybe you're a beta bitch whose only hope was to earn a wife, but in the context of widespread rape all the females are successfully guarded. So you're assumption that rape is good for male gene propagation isn't even true for most men.

A second point you once again refused to acknowledge is that many cultural norms have a biological, evolutionary basis. I hate to use the word again because it seems to bother you, but you are ignorant of evolution if you think culture and biology are not directly linked. Many aspects of our culture are directly tied to evolution.

[–]harkrank1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's obvious why rape like any other reproduction benefits the individual's genes. Your description assumes that the female is able to chose the best genes for her offspring. Does the peacock benefit from his feather display? Of course not, but he has to sacrifice energy on it to be able to impress females and reproduce because it would be very difficult for him to rape.

What of course is "best" for the evolution of the species is that the males fight and the most dominant fathers the next generation. However we have evolved beyond that, our ability to form groups make this kind of struggle in vain, because we kill each other unlike other mammals. Also the fact that women are fertile every month instead of once per year would make this fighting disastrous for the species.

There is not such a large difference in strength in men that there would be a big alpha/beta difference like is created by society today. The "beta bitch" in your scenario would be a serious opponent to any alpha he challenged. And no alpha would successfully guard his mates unless he had the aid of other men and that they shared sexual access to the women. Now we're already past biological behavior because women are hardwired to 80/20.

There would be no reason for men to be bigger than women if rape was not a viable method for reproduction. Men would have ornaments like birds if sexual selection was the only way we reproduced. In mammals where the males fight for dominance there is no reason to talk about rape, since the females can not chose their partners. Their hypothetical sexual attraction to dominant behavior is in this case a byproduct, not a deciding factor. Nobody but her is affected by it. In ancient societies rape was considered a crime that could only be done against a man or his property.

We see today in feminized societies how the definition of rape is being moved from forceful and involuntary sex to sex that is regretted or undesired sexual attention. That's because we are moving away from the male definition of rape and on to the female definition of rape. In the male definition it is the act itself that matters, in the female definition it is who the sexual status of the perpetuator that matters.

[–]NikolaTeslaMGTOW 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]InsanityManifest 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's interesting how sexual selection is a mental instinct among humans even though we as a species have such dimorphism (difference in body between male and female) that sexual selection shouldn't exist.

Just because we are able to contemplate our sexual urges does not mean that it is a mental instinct. It's also not a question of dimorphism but of numbers. In rural areas, it's harder to be hypergamous simply because there aren't enough men to branch swing from and social groups have to rely on each other more so it's easier to enforce social mores on people.

It still happens but not on the level of what city-dwelling women can achieve.

What I mean is that any man can overpower any woman and rape her, so why does she choose?

Men have a natural instinct to protect women. We don't like it when women are in pain.

Imagine you're a "caveman" back in 10,000 BC, and one of your fellow tribesman (a nubile young female) comes back from gathering berries. She looks shaken, she has a thousand-yard stare, she's crying, looks bruised, half-beaten, and is terrified. As she articulates what happened, her cries get more emphatic. The elder women take her into the cave to get her food and calm her down.

Now, you as a caveman have to contemplate what this means.

It's not just a rape. It means that the area that you and your tribe call home may no longer be safe. If there's one, there could be others. What would they do to your son, who has not yet become a man? What would happen if more came because they thought your tribe was weak? What about the rest of your women?

No, you can't let it stand because you realize that any man that cannot protect his women, the life-producing members of the tribe, then your genes don't progress.

In so many words, if there is too much rape, your genes will be extinguished by stronger and more ruthless men.

But this means a woman's best strategy would be to keep quiet about any rape.

On the contrary, the power to accuse a man of rape is quite powerful. Women have been doing it since...Forever. Remember the story of Daniel in the Bible?

Women understand that so long as they are valuable, their accusations have power. Women only keep quiet about rape if they feel they are low-status.

This is why women have such a crazy double-standard with rape (or "ravishment"). Rape is what happens to "low-status" women and they can only see the act as something that happens to a low-status woman, or is committed by a low-status man. If a high-status man does it, it's ravishment, it's okay (because who wouldn't want him?).

It's why girls can be shamed by other women for accusing a man who is high-status. It's why Mike Tyson had women chasing him when he had his rape charge. It's also why women who think they have high SMV don't see their sexual abuse of young men to be a crime, he should be happy an older hot woman wants him!

I think rape is a very complicated issue and we as men misunderstand it because we think about it from our perspective and male on male rape is a very straight forward issue.

I absolutely agree with this though. In a world of laws, rape is rape no matter what.

[–]NikolaTeslaMGTOW 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]trpMilo 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]harkrank 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]NikolaTeslaMGTOW 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]harkrank 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link