While part of me agrees, a real man will simply bring his woman to heel and make a mother of her. Once that happens you keep that bitch limited in her power, barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.
We aren’t discussing me. I made a choice to find a nice woman who was much younger than I was and not run through yet. From day one I spoke very candidly about my thoughts on a woman’s role. But not everyone can pull a solid woman like that so in the case when its a whore or nothing, my suggestion stands. Is it Ideal? No but it can be made to work for you the man.
If she did a gangbang then the bitch better be a damn good cook.
I have stricter requirements than you. I don't want a whore for the mother of my children. That's why it took me so long to find her. At least I got exactly what I wanted.
My wife is a fantastic cook and has never been gangbanged.
When I was a lot more naive and accepting of this shit I had a long term relationship with a woman that had done filthy shit in the past. She never cheated on me and I had no problem with her but I could never stop thinking about all the gross shit she had done years before we met. It ruined the relationship.
It's very easy. Women love talking about themselves online and know shit about covering up their tracks. Just look her up, follow her social media and put two and two together.
I completely agree. I’m an extremely private person typically. Here is where I open up the most “publicly”.
I had a MySpace when I was in high school and when Facebook hit I already was over social media and the drama it caused. Then I realized I was fucked because Facebook kept everyone acting the same, and was spilling into real life at an alarming rate.
Now we are here and I had to run away “innawoods” to get some peace.
You know this is not an equal argument. Women are emotionally based and can bond based on sexual intimacy. Guys just want to nut. The more partners a woman has had the less able to bond through intimacy a woman has. In may even break after one partner. The woman will seek this intimacy she csn no longer have in the form of additional partner and the physical lust.
Additionally, men can ejaculate into a woman and the sperm stay forever, potentially even having an effect on later procreation. It doesn't occur in reverse.
Female oxytocin response is permanently impaired by multiple partners, specifically disappointments (bonds repeatedly established and then broken), with impairment increasing with partner count. She becomes both less trusting and less trustworthy, and more likely to practice infidelity. She is less able to form strong bonds, including with her own offspring.
Ergo, biologically speaking, "once a whore, always a whore."
Why wouldn’t one assume that women who are predisposed to have multiple partners are simply less likely to from a strong bond? Polygamy/ monogamy is genetic. Northern eurasian populations are far more likely to be monogamous.
Women living in more polygamous regions are more likely to be traded as chattel, or to be kidnapped and raped, because polygamy selects for violent males who are greedy for multiple women. In general, people from polygamous societies have lower trust in each other because of the high rates of corruption and violence that go along with higher sexual competition between males. There is lower trust even between siblings in polygamous societies, because siblings tend to be less related to each other than in monogamous societies.
So how do you know whether people from more polygamous societies are simply genetically more suspicious and also predisposed to having multiple partners?
Isn’t this a case of being born a whore? This is just r/K strategy stuff isn’t it? I know you guys are dying to justify why its totally fine for white men to be whores. Its not. We must continue to root out r strategists within our own population, both male and female. The problem is genetic.
I wrote a longish response to this comment before but the system logged me off. Then I started again and my comment was lost a second time. So Im a little frustrated rn.
I explained why polygamy as a strategy seems to be favored in some environments and why monogamy seems to be favored in others, in regions with long cold winters particularly. I explained why certain behavioral traits in males like violence, theft, high libido, low paternal investment in children make sense in the context of polygamy and why traits like cooperativity, low violence, lower libido, higher productivity, and higher paternal investment make sense in the context of monogamy. It shouldn’t be too controversial that these behavioral traits can be genetic. Penguins are monogamists. Gorillas are polygamists. Its not learned in these species. When males can be reproductively successful by killing off other male competitors, hoarding resources and fucking many females, they will generally be selected for those traits. Males with an abundance of these character traits will overwhelm more reproductively conservative males where they can.
In regions where females are heavily reliant on male resources for survival, ( cold regions where meat is the primary food source in winter) males are selected for monogamous traits. White guy traits. Even muslims and feather niggers at some point had the more opportunistically reproductive individuals weeded out of their gene pools. But subsequent migrations to new environments and mixing with more tropical populations can erode more conservative reproductive strategies.
In islam, war-like, libidinous alphas are favored because they invade new lands, steal and rape women, kill off the local males and amass hoards of wealth with which they can support their harems. Their offspring overwhelm more monogamous males in the population. Eventually even the incels are descendents of rapey warlords— males with genes for higher hormone levels, or levels of certain neurotransmitters that favor violent, greedy behavior. These males are impelled by their genes to invade the next country and loot and pillage. But all this behavior can be thought of as a hypercompetitive reproductive arms race among males to hoard as many women as possible by grabbing resources and killing off the competition.
Monogamy reduces male sexual competition and incentivizes males to be selected for economically productive behaviors. Males begin to compete for the highest quality female, and so they begin to be selected for traits that females prefer— reliability, attentiveness, loyalty.
Of course these behaviors are not entirely genetic and cultural regimes will influence behavior at the margins. But SS africans are the most reproductively opportunistic and living in a white christian society did not cause them to act in a reproductively conservative way. Their STD rates are off the charts.
Look at the child grooming gangs of Britain. All muslims from pakistan and bangladesh. I wondered, why aren’t the hindus of britain drugging and fucking little white girls? I thought, does reading the Koran just make you want to fuck kids?
It turns out all polygynous societies have large age disparities between grooms and brides. Wealthy, high status males can cock block younger low status males by hoarding very young girls. Those with a predisposition for very young girls have an advantage in this environment. Even when you remove them from their old environment, these males still have an irresistable urge for jail bait. This is also true of autralian abos and mormons, and some other groups as well.
Once a population can be reproductively successful in a given strategy, they will continue to evolve to become more efficient in that strategy. This genetic evolution happens quicker than we would think, in hundreds of years rather than thousands sometimes. Jews have had a very rapid evolution in their particular niche.
We are consistently overestimating cultural influence in behavior and underestimating the power of our genetics on behavior and genetic variation as a driving factor of behavioral disparities.
Males are every bit as “emotionally based” . You think males don’t operate on emotions? Haha. You’re trying to argue that the male emotional range is not really emotions, or maybe somehow ‘good’ emotions or ‘rational’ emotions. You know when you buy pharmaceutical testosterone it list mood swings and increased hostility as a side effect? Oh let me guess, its “not an equal emotion”, right?
and can bond based on sexual intimacy.
You are talking about white women.
Guys just want to nut.
You mean nigger guys.
The more partners a woman has had the less able to bond through intimacy a woman has.
Hello chicken meet egg. Women more likely to bond monogamously have fewer partners. Same with men.
There is more variability in male reproductive strategy than in female reproductive strategy. It is intuitive that females take a more conservative quality over quantity strategy of reproduction since reproduction is a greater investment/risk for females. Males can have two different strategies for reproduction. One is the more opportunistic “guys just want to nut” approach exploited by niggers and muslims since the minimum possible resource investment by males in an act of reproduction is about 200 kcal and 5 minutes. This is a strategy in which males who cheat and steal from and murder each other, and males who are the most horny succeed by murdering male competitor or cock blocking them by hoarding all the wealth and fucking as many females as possible because their “emotions” tell them to.
The alternative “monogamous” approach by white males is to form a pair bond and have one set of children by one female. In this strategy males compete —not by murdering each other and muh dick— but by supporting their mates and children economically, aka not being a nigger. Monogamy succeeds in environments where male economic contribution is important to the survival of children: generally cold climates where males were heavily relied upon for meat during winter. It was an accident that whites were selected for monogamous behavior because cold winters kill off the offspring of male whores who are shitty providers. Otherwise we’d all be niggers.
Female promiscuity disincentivizes males from contributing economically to their children (ie having a job) because of an inability to ensure paternity.
Male promiscuity is the cause of virtually ALL murder by males and the cause of high wealth disparity and corruption. If you think about the kind of males that male promiscuity rewards reproductively, you will understand why male promiscuity leads to high violence, highly greedy, corrupt males being selected over more monogamous, honest, egalitarian males.
Monogamy must be maintained by males. It is a pact between males in which males agree not to allow high status males hoard women or hoard wealth in order to hoard women. This only leads to more aggressive dishonest greedy males in your population.
The problem isn’t that white women are so slutty. Its that the distribution of the number of sex partners of males is bimodal— some males are screwing high numbers of women and some men are screwing none. Both high and low value women have a quantity of sex partners somewhere in between these two extremes. But somehow this is women’s fault? No. Its the failure of white males to regulate each other to prevent the hoarding of women. This has been going on since the fifties at least.
To argue that its okay for men to behave promiscuously and to implement a sand-nigger like society by favoring genes for corruption, low IQ, lower economic productivity, and rapey and kiddie fucking behavior traits is just retarded. Any time you allow males to reproduce polygynously you will favor sand nigger traits. So GTFO with the “nut” argument. Thats the “it’s fine to be a nigger” arguement.
Females are less loyal in polygynous cultures btw, because they are bartered to wealthier and more powerful males and tend to be selected for higher transferability of allegiance. They are selected for malleability, which is what some of you faggots are always whining about.
men being slutty is fine, but women should be more loyal and love us more.
Everytime a tribe of males raided some other tribe to steal their women, and then favored the females who were most eager to transfer tribal loyalty and suck their dicks, males were selecting for female disloyalty, do you get that? Female traits are influenced by male behavior and vice versa. To be blaming all men or all women is collosally myopic.
I mean, you are in an ideological bubble here, where if you say, “Literally everything going wrong in sexual politics is women’s fault,” you will get lots of uncritical slaps on the back. But don’t feel too confident about that. The problem is an economic shift that white men and women have failed to endure without a radical change in reproductive behavior. To obtusely maintain that its all because of women’s choices is to refuse to understand the problem. Men and women childishly blame each other they will never solve the problem. The problem is NOT a fundamental weakness of the character in either women or men.
Your arguments are off-topic. I didn't say men are less promiscuous. Actually, the contrary. Men are designed to be more promiscuous. Men can consider sex to just be a physical act. Men do not bond through intimacy. I.e. men don't need to snuggle after sex and don't need foreplay to get in the mood. Bang and done. Women want that close emotional connection before and after sex.
Men are designed to be more promiscuous. Men can consider sex to just be a physical act. Men do not bond through intimacy
I agree. This is “nigger mode”— polygamy. Some males have a low ability to form enduring attachments to women, and tend to choose the quantity over quality strategy of parenting— low parental investment, low investment in mate.
Other males are highly attentive and do in fact form strong bonds with the women they have sex with. These males are predisposed for monogamy.
Men can consider sex to just be a physical act. Men do not bond through intimacy. I.e. men don't need to snuggle after sex and don't need foreplay to get in the mood.
To assert that this is how all men are is absurd. To assert that no women are like this is absurd. Men only see sex as a physical act? No men like to cuddle? No men like foreplay to get in the mood? Ridiculous.
Wherever males can succeed reproductively by hoarding as many uteruses as possible, they become hyper-violent and hyper-libidinous through intrasexual selection. This is the base case of human males. Only some eurasians were selected for being less violent, attentive dads who competed as bread winners for the highest value females and not the highest quantity of females. Elites in monogamous societies still tend to carry polygamous qualities.
Polygamy is a reproductive mode, particularly in males, which is associated with a constellation of traits which are opportunistic and inefficient. Its inefficient to have males cheating and murdering each other all day when they could be cooperating economically to build a prosperous high trust society.
Men “have to go to war” because it is an old mode of reproductive competition that is hard to shake. The underlying instinct behind british aristocrats and french aristocrats competing to see how much more of the 3rd world they could colonize is an irresistable impulse on the part of high status males to acquire the most wealth so that they could acquire the most females. The more we can prevent the reproductive success of polygamists, the nicer the society we can have (less corrupt, more prosperous).
Men and women will always compete sexually. Polygamist males compete by killing each other. Monogamist males compete by creating wealth. Women compete by showing off their nurturing skills. While I don’t expect men to suddenly cease behaving in warlike ways sometimes, I don’t think we need to pin a medal on them for fighting wars which they as a group create for themselves and assume they are somehow more virtuous than cake bakers. If males have to shoulder the burden of war, its because of males ffs. Its not martians the wage war on our countries! Its dudes!
You really failed to see my point. Women assess damage each time they have a relationship and break up. Men do not.
I was once with a girl I thought was innocent. She turned out to have ridden the cock carousel before I came around. I treated her well, but was too beta. She wasn't sexually attracted, but loved all the attention and caring. Fast-forward 25 years. She found me, was under the delusion that she had been in love with me all along, let me go because I was too good and the time wasn't right. She wanted to leave her husband (did actually) (although I think she wanted me to kill him, long story), she wanted me to leave my wife, so we could finally joi as we were always me at to. She spent a lot of time seducing me. None of it worked. She stalked me for a while. I did enjoy the attention until I realized her full intentions. I didn't cheat.
My point is, she was damaged. She knew she was missing something (intimacy) and her memory of me was the closest she had come since her first, who was abusive. She had chosen poorly, from the get-go. She had been miserable because of something she could not attain. Intimacy, that feeling of bonding on a deep emotional level which is directly accessed through sex. Men bond, but sex isn't in the equation to the same degree, not even close.
You really failed to see my point. Women assess damage each time they have a relationship and break up. Men do not.
Of course they do. Males take it HARD if a woman does them wrong, or rejects them. So many guys here are so angry all the time because some bitch didn’t love them back. They are so bitter they need to vent their frustrations on me! As if all the ladies were in on it together.
I did enjoy the attention until I realized her full intentions. I didn't cheat.
Oh good. Very white of you.
She had been miserable because of something she could not attain. Intimacy, that feeling of bonding on a deep emotional level which is directly accessed through sex.
Women often find dominant, hyper-masculine males attractive but these males can often be bad life-mates. Women also sometimes prefer attentive males who will care about what they think and feel. I think a lot of women are attracted to the first type as younger women but come to appreciate the later type as they mature. Just like young men sometimes throw their life away on a really attractive woman that treats them like shit. Have you never had a male friend who totally whipped by some harpy he fucked? I certainly have.
Some women are deeply emotionally invested in every person they have sex with. Those women tend to have fewer sex partners. Same with men. Ive certainly known women that could care less about the men they fuck and men who fall in love with every woman the sleep with. All women don’t have sex because they are in love of course. I know, shocker. Some women sleep with or marry someone so they can live in a nice house. Do all these women undergo a deep emotional bond that transforms them in to infatuated cake bakers?
Nice cope. Your hot and heavy female hate circle jerk was spoiled by someone pointing out its hypocrisy, and you just can’t admit that its true. If someone posted some story about a guy who fucked nigger sheboons and titled it “Anon finds out about men” you’d be screeching about how feminists are always trying to demonize males. Totally equivalent. Tons of males are whores. Male whores are filth.
I don’t even care for many of the posts there, not exactly what I’d call thot patrol, it’s more like v/womengettinginjured.
Your straw man is very poorly made and it doesn’t fit me at all. Do better.
I would hate on the oil driller for the same thing, I don’t talk lustfully about sex/my sex life with others. I think it’s crass and inappropriate to talk like that, personal opinion. A dude dipping his dick into that many women is bound to end up with something, just like the female, it’s gross.
This is the only time I really have issue with you Helena, when you try to jew me instead of have a conversation. It’s annoying and honestly this is the attitude of the modern woman that I tell men to avoid. I’ve left plenty of women who embrace this mentality, I’ve learned there is no changing a person, better to just move on.
The only problem I have with you Heron is that you jump on the female hate bandwagon so often. You aren’t the worst but Ive seen you say some bad shit about white women— unnuanced “ all women are like this” type shit. Ive made no secret of the fact that I find hating on women — as a species— in this way, unacceptable and I will push back on it where I see it. I view it as deeply harmful and divisive. I don’t have a problem with folks pointing out bad behavior by thots or feminists, or debates about sexual politics that are critical of trends in female behavior. This blind misogyny of all women is absolutely the end of white people. Its childish and fails to identify the problem. It suits the sore feelings of some angry men but it won’t help them.
Only guys who are having non faggot gangbangs are prob paying $10k for them. Every woman who goes to college will be in a gangbang 2x day for her entire 5yr comms degree. That's what her father is paying for
[ + ] big_fat_dangus
[ - ] big_fat_dangus [op] 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 10, 2022 08:25:05 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Sturmgeschutz
[ - ] Sturmgeschutz 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 10, 2022 07:37:30 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Garrett
[ - ] Garrett 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 19:19:51 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] big_fat_dangus
[ - ] big_fat_dangus [op] 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 19:37:28 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Blackpowerwhitepowder
[ - ] Blackpowerwhitepowder 1 point 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 16:56:30 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 10, 2022 11:28:42 ago (+0/-0)
One question, do you want a mom who had a gangbang?
[ + ] Blackpowerwhitepowder
[ - ] Blackpowerwhitepowder 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 10, 2022 12:01:50 ago (+0/-0)
If she did a gangbang then the bitch better be a damn good cook.
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 10, 2022 12:12:58 ago (+0/-0)
My wife is a fantastic cook and has never been gangbanged.
[ + ] solomonpapermaster
[ - ] solomonpapermaster 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 14:42:56 ago (+0/-0)
In his defense, it is rather difficult to find a decent women now a days.
[ + ] fnbs
[ - ] fnbs 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 15:34:39 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] fightknightHERO
[ - ] fightknightHERO 1 point 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 14:20:08 ago (+1/-0)
anon dodged a huge bullet there
[ + ] NuckFiggers
[ - ] NuckFiggers 4 points 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 13:27:54 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] Fascinus
[ - ] Fascinus 2 points 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 13:11:04 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] BlowjaySimpson
[ - ] BlowjaySimpson 1 point 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 14:53:37 ago (+1/-0)
But Laquisha and Rosalita don't give a fuck, and pop out 10 kids.
[ + ] Fascinus
[ - ] Fascinus 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 17:12:44 ago (+0/-0)
Weimar Germany is a good example.
[ + ] FellowWhite
[ - ] FellowWhite 3 points 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 12:39:22 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] big_fat_dangus
[ - ] big_fat_dangus [op] 2 points 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 12:40:30 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Garrett
[ - ] Garrett 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 19:20:43 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] con77
[ - ] con77 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 12:22:51 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] RecycledElectrons
[ - ] RecycledElectrons 2 points 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 08:32:31 ago (+3/-1)
Anon is a slut.
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 3 points 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 10:43:27 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] NuckFiggers
[ - ] NuckFiggers 2 points 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 13:28:45 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] big_fat_dangus
[ - ] big_fat_dangus [op] 4 points 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 13:31:50 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] NuckFiggers
[ - ] NuckFiggers 2 points 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 13:52:09 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena -1 points 3.3 yearsJan 10, 2022 01:08:36 ago (+0/-1)
Lol Whores don’t count.
You: “Hey Crystal, just because we’re seeing alot of each other, don’t get carried away with any romantic notions.”
Her: “ Give me my $50 or Im calling my pimp.”
[ + ] big_fat_dangus
[ - ] big_fat_dangus [op] 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 11, 2022 03:46:44 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 16:54:48 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] NuckFiggers
[ - ] NuckFiggers 1 point 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 17:00:13 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 10, 2022 11:27:29 ago (+0/-0)
I had a MySpace when I was in high school and when Facebook hit I already was over social media and the drama it caused. Then I realized I was fucked because Facebook kept everyone acting the same, and was spilling into real life at an alarming rate.
Now we are here and I had to run away “innawoods” to get some peace.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena -4 points 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 08:14:46 ago (+2/-6)
I guess no guys are disgusting gangbangers. Haha.
[ + ] SparklingWiggle
[ - ] SparklingWiggle 8 points 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 10:40:43 ago (+8/-0)
Additionally, men can ejaculate into a woman and the sperm stay forever, potentially even having an effect on later procreation. It doesn't occur in reverse.
[ + ] ToNigIsToNog
[ - ] ToNigIsToNog 2 points 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 12:32:01 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] uvulectomy
[ - ] uvulectomy 1 point 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 14:33:45 ago (+1/-0)
Ergo, biologically speaking, "once a whore, always a whore."
[ + ] SparklingWiggle
[ - ] SparklingWiggle 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 19:15:17 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena -1 points 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 22:15:41 ago (+0/-1)
Women living in more polygamous regions are more likely to be traded as chattel, or to be kidnapped and raped, because polygamy selects for violent males who are greedy for multiple women. In general, people from polygamous societies have lower trust in each other because of the high rates of corruption and violence that go along with higher sexual competition between males. There is lower trust even between siblings in polygamous societies, because siblings tend to be less related to each other than in monogamous societies.
So how do you know whether people from more polygamous societies are simply genetically more suspicious and also predisposed to having multiple partners?
Isn’t this a case of being born a whore? This is just r/K strategy stuff isn’t it? I know you guys are dying to justify why its totally fine for white men to be whores. Its not. We must continue to root out r strategists within our own population, both male and female. The problem is genetic.
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 10, 2022 11:43:40 ago (+0/-0)
I have seen studies that support what the men are saying, I can’t find anything to support your claims though.
Can you help me out?
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 10, 2022 18:21:44 ago (+0/-0)
I explained why polygamy as a strategy seems to be favored in some environments and why monogamy seems to be favored in others, in regions with long cold winters particularly. I explained why certain behavioral traits in males like violence, theft, high libido, low paternal investment in children make sense in the context of polygamy and why traits like cooperativity, low violence, lower libido, higher productivity, and higher paternal investment make sense in the context of monogamy. It shouldn’t be too controversial that these behavioral traits can be genetic. Penguins are monogamists. Gorillas are polygamists. Its not learned in these species. When males can be reproductively successful by killing off other male competitors, hoarding resources and fucking many females, they will generally be selected for those traits. Males with an abundance of these character traits will overwhelm more reproductively conservative males where they can.
In regions where females are heavily reliant on male resources for survival, ( cold regions where meat is the primary food source in winter) males are selected for monogamous traits. White guy traits. Even muslims and feather niggers at some point had the more opportunistically reproductive individuals weeded out of their gene pools. But subsequent migrations to new environments and mixing with more tropical populations can erode more conservative reproductive strategies.
In islam, war-like, libidinous alphas are favored because they invade new lands, steal and rape women, kill off the local males and amass hoards of wealth with which they can support their harems. Their offspring overwhelm more monogamous males in the population. Eventually even the incels are descendents of rapey warlords— males with genes for higher hormone levels, or levels of certain neurotransmitters that favor violent, greedy behavior. These males are impelled by their genes to invade the next country and loot and pillage. But all this behavior can be thought of as a hypercompetitive reproductive arms race among males to hoard as many women as possible by grabbing resources and killing off the competition.
Monogamy reduces male sexual competition and incentivizes males to be selected for economically productive behaviors. Males begin to compete for the highest quality female, and so they begin to be selected for traits that females prefer— reliability, attentiveness, loyalty.
Of course these behaviors are not entirely genetic and cultural regimes will influence behavior at the margins. But SS africans are the most reproductively opportunistic and living in a white christian society did not cause them to act in a reproductively conservative way. Their STD rates are off the charts.
Look at the child grooming gangs of Britain. All muslims from pakistan and bangladesh. I wondered, why aren’t the hindus of britain drugging and fucking little white girls? I thought, does reading the Koran just make you want to fuck kids?
It turns out all polygynous societies have large age disparities between grooms and brides. Wealthy, high status males can cock block younger low status males by hoarding very young girls. Those with a predisposition for very young girls have an advantage in this environment. Even when you remove them from their old environment, these males still have an irresistable urge for jail bait. This is also true of autralian abos and mormons, and some other groups as well.
Once a population can be reproductively successful in a given strategy, they will continue to evolve to become more efficient in that strategy. This genetic evolution happens quicker than we would think, in hundreds of years rather than thousands sometimes. Jews have had a very rapid evolution in their particular niche.
We are consistently overestimating cultural influence in behavior and underestimating the power of our genetics on behavior and genetic variation as a driving factor of behavioral disparities.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena -1 points 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 21:58:39 ago (+0/-1)
It is.
Males are every bit as “emotionally based” . You think males don’t operate on emotions? Haha. You’re trying to argue that the male emotional range is not really emotions, or maybe somehow ‘good’ emotions or ‘rational’ emotions. You know when you buy pharmaceutical testosterone it list mood swings and increased hostility as a side effect? Oh let me guess, its “not an equal emotion”, right?
You are talking about white women.
You mean nigger guys.
Hello chicken meet egg. Women more likely to bond monogamously have fewer partners. Same with men.
There is more variability in male reproductive strategy than in female reproductive strategy. It is intuitive that females take a more conservative quality over quantity strategy of reproduction since reproduction is a greater investment/risk for females. Males can have two different strategies for reproduction. One is the more opportunistic “guys just want to nut” approach exploited by niggers and muslims since the minimum possible resource investment by males in an act of reproduction is about 200 kcal and 5 minutes. This is a strategy in which males who cheat and steal from and murder each other, and males who are the most horny succeed by murdering male competitor or cock blocking them by hoarding all the wealth and fucking as many females as possible because their “emotions” tell them to.
The alternative “monogamous” approach by white males is to form a pair bond and have one set of children by one female. In this strategy males compete —not by murdering each other and muh dick— but by supporting their mates and children economically, aka not being a nigger. Monogamy succeeds in environments where male economic contribution is important to the survival of children: generally cold climates where males were heavily relied upon for meat during winter. It was an accident that whites were selected for monogamous behavior because cold winters kill off the offspring of male whores who are shitty providers. Otherwise we’d all be niggers.
Female promiscuity disincentivizes males from contributing economically to their children (ie having a job) because of an inability to ensure paternity.
Male promiscuity is the cause of virtually ALL murder by males and the cause of high wealth disparity and corruption. If you think about the kind of males that male promiscuity rewards reproductively, you will understand why male promiscuity leads to high violence, highly greedy, corrupt males being selected over more monogamous, honest, egalitarian males.
Monogamy must be maintained by males. It is a pact between males in which males agree not to allow high status males hoard women or hoard wealth in order to hoard women. This only leads to more aggressive dishonest greedy males in your population.
The problem isn’t that white women are so slutty. Its that the distribution of the number of sex partners of males is bimodal— some males are screwing high numbers of women and some men are screwing none. Both high and low value women have a quantity of sex partners somewhere in between these two extremes. But somehow this is women’s fault? No. Its the failure of white males to regulate each other to prevent the hoarding of women. This has been going on since the fifties at least.
To argue that its okay for men to behave promiscuously and to implement a sand-nigger like society by favoring genes for corruption, low IQ, lower economic productivity, and rapey and kiddie fucking behavior traits is just retarded. Any time you allow males to reproduce polygynously you will favor sand nigger traits. So GTFO with the “nut” argument. Thats the “it’s fine to be a nigger” arguement.
Females are less loyal in polygynous cultures btw, because they are bartered to wealthier and more powerful males and tend to be selected for higher transferability of allegiance. They are selected for malleability, which is what some of you faggots are always whining about.
Everytime a tribe of males raided some other tribe to steal their women, and then favored the females who were most eager to transfer tribal loyalty and suck their dicks, males were selecting for female disloyalty, do you get that? Female traits are influenced by male behavior and vice versa. To be blaming all men or all women is collosally myopic.
I mean, you are in an ideological bubble here, where if you say, “Literally everything going wrong in sexual politics is women’s fault,” you will get lots of uncritical slaps on the back. But don’t feel too confident about that. The problem is an economic shift that white men and women have failed to endure without a radical change in reproductive behavior. To obtusely maintain that its all because of women’s choices is to refuse to understand the problem. Men and women childishly blame each other they will never solve the problem. The problem is NOT a fundamental weakness of the character in either women or men.
[ + ] SparklingWiggle
[ - ] SparklingWiggle 1 point 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 22:24:27 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 10, 2022 00:45:41 ago (+0/-0)
I agree. This is “nigger mode”— polygamy. Some males have a low ability to form enduring attachments to women, and tend to choose the quantity over quality strategy of parenting— low parental investment, low investment in mate.
Other males are highly attentive and do in fact form strong bonds with the women they have sex with. These males are predisposed for monogamy.
To assert that this is how all men are is absurd. To assert that no women are like this is absurd. Men only see sex as a physical act? No men like to cuddle? No men like foreplay to get in the mood? Ridiculous.
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 10, 2022 11:48:41 ago (+0/-0)
Turns out the niggers had the better strategy the whole time!
Thanks Helena!
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 10, 2022 15:42:52 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 10, 2022 17:06:14 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] SparklingWiggle
[ - ] SparklingWiggle 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 22:16:15 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 23:39:34 ago (+0/-0)
Lol. Do you not see the connection? The true reason that males go to war and not females?
Why do males fight?
https://files.catbox.moe/v8lcsa.jpg
https://files.catbox.moe/omf321.jpg
To get more hos.
Wherever males can succeed reproductively by hoarding as many uteruses as possible, they become hyper-violent and hyper-libidinous through intrasexual selection. This is the base case of human males. Only some eurasians were selected for being less violent, attentive dads who competed as bread winners for the highest value females and not the highest quantity of females. Elites in monogamous societies still tend to carry polygamous qualities.
Polygamy is a reproductive mode, particularly in males, which is associated with a constellation of traits which are opportunistic and inefficient. Its inefficient to have males cheating and murdering each other all day when they could be cooperating economically to build a prosperous high trust society.
Men “have to go to war” because it is an old mode of reproductive competition that is hard to shake. The underlying instinct behind british aristocrats and french aristocrats competing to see how much more of the 3rd world they could colonize is an irresistable impulse on the part of high status males to acquire the most wealth so that they could acquire the most females. The more we can prevent the reproductive success of polygamists, the nicer the society we can have (less corrupt, more prosperous).
Men and women will always compete sexually. Polygamist males compete by killing each other. Monogamist males compete by creating wealth. Women compete by showing off their nurturing skills. While I don’t expect men to suddenly cease behaving in warlike ways sometimes, I don’t think we need to pin a medal on them for fighting wars which they as a group create for themselves and assume they are somehow more virtuous than cake bakers. If males have to shoulder the burden of war, its because of males ffs. Its not martians the wage war on our countries! Its dudes!
[ + ] SparklingWiggle
[ - ] SparklingWiggle 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 22:17:45 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] SparklingWiggle
[ - ] SparklingWiggle 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 22:37:49 ago (+0/-0)
I was once with a girl I thought was innocent. She turned out to have ridden the cock carousel before I came around. I treated her well, but was too beta. She wasn't sexually attracted, but loved all the attention and caring. Fast-forward 25 years. She found me, was under the delusion that she had been in love with me all along, let me go because I was too good and the time wasn't right. She wanted to leave her husband (did actually) (although I think she wanted me to kill him, long story), she wanted me to leave my wife, so we could finally joi as we were always me at to. She spent a lot of time seducing me. None of it worked. She stalked me for a while. I did enjoy the attention until I realized her full intentions. I didn't cheat.
My point is, she was damaged. She knew she was missing something (intimacy) and her memory of me was the closest she had come since her first, who was abusive. She had chosen poorly, from the get-go. She had been miserable because of something she could not attain. Intimacy, that feeling of bonding on a deep emotional level which is directly accessed through sex. Men bond, but sex isn't in the equation to the same degree, not even close.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 10, 2022 00:29:18 ago (+0/-0)
Of course they do. Males take it HARD if a woman does them wrong, or rejects them. So many guys here are so angry all the time because some bitch didn’t love them back. They are so bitter they need to vent their frustrations on me! As if all the ladies were in on it together.
Oh good. Very white of you.
Women often find dominant, hyper-masculine males attractive but these males can often be bad life-mates. Women also sometimes prefer attentive males who will care about what they think and feel. I think a lot of women are attracted to the first type as younger women but come to appreciate the later type as they mature. Just like young men sometimes throw their life away on a really attractive woman that treats them like shit. Have you never had a male friend who totally whipped by some harpy he fucked? I certainly have.
Some women are deeply emotionally invested in every person they have sex with. Those women tend to have fewer sex partners. Same with men. Ive certainly known women that could care less about the men they fuck and men who fall in love with every woman the sleep with. All women don’t have sex because they are in love of course. I know, shocker. Some women sleep with or marry someone so they can live in a nice house. Do all these women undergo a deep emotional bond that transforms them in to infatuated cake bakers?
[ + ] big_fat_dangus
[ - ] big_fat_dangus [op] 4 points 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 08:52:29 ago (+5/-1)
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 1 point 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 10:40:34 ago (+1/-0)
This comment is that same as when weak men cry “bu bu but women do this and that!” All it does is make people roll their eyes and sigh.
False equivalency
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena -2 points 3.3 yearsJan 10, 2022 01:23:51 ago (+0/-2)
Nice cope. Your hot and heavy female hate circle jerk was spoiled by someone pointing out its hypocrisy, and you just can’t admit that its true. If someone posted some story about a guy who fucked nigger sheboons and titled it “Anon finds out about men” you’d be screeching about how feminists are always trying to demonize males. Totally equivalent. Tons of males are whores. Male whores are filth.
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 10, 2022 11:38:04 ago (+0/-0)
I don’t even care for many of the posts there, not exactly what I’d call thot patrol, it’s more like v/womengettinginjured.
Your straw man is very poorly made and it doesn’t fit me at all. Do better.
I would hate on the oil driller for the same thing, I don’t talk lustfully about sex/my sex life with others. I think it’s crass and inappropriate to talk like that, personal opinion. A dude dipping his dick into that many women is bound to end up with something, just like the female, it’s gross.
This is the only time I really have issue with you Helena, when you try to jew me instead of have a conversation. It’s annoying and honestly this is the attitude of the modern woman that I tell men to avoid. I’ve left plenty of women who embrace this mentality, I’ve learned there is no changing a person, better to just move on.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 10, 2022 15:39:50 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] ModernGuilt
[ - ] ModernGuilt 0 points 3.3 yearsJan 9, 2022 11:57:44 ago (+0/-0)
Every woman who goes to college will be in a gangbang 2x day for her entire 5yr comms degree. That's what her father is paying for